| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No. 238 of 24-08-2023 Decided on : 20-03-2024 Gurvinder Singh, HN 29252-A, Plot 17647, Street No.2, Janta Nagar, City Bathinda-151001. E-mail: ........Complainant Versus The Arvind Kumar, Medical Shopkeeper, Street-2, Janta Nagar, Mobile 70098-72272 R/o Dhillon Colony, City-Bathinda-151001. .......opposite party Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM Smt.Priti Malhotra, President Smt.Sharda Attri, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh.Gurvinder Singh in person. Opposite party : Ex-parte. ORDER Priti Malhotra, President The complainant Gurvinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against The Arvind Kumar (here-in-after referred to as opposite party). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite party in order to get provide loaning services with 100% gurantee within 15 days at 10% commission under deceptive trade practice, received Rs.7500/- on 18.1.2023 and it did not provide any loaning services. It was responsibility of opposite party to refund the money after 15 days. The complainant paid the money to opposite party by borrowing from Mrs.Charanjit Kaur before two witnesses Avtar Singh and Sapandeep Sharma. Since 18.1.2023, he has sufferred daily rounds, calls, convening M.C and locality panchayati persons and police complaints, but opposite party did not return the money back. The complainant has also got issued legal notice dated 31.7.2023 of the complaint. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite party to refund him Rs.7500/- and to pay costs and litigation expenses. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 21.8.2023, (Ex.C1) and documents, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C6). We have heard the complainant and gone through the file carefully. The complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint as detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. The complainant has submitted that he has paid Rs.7500/- to opposite party for availing the loan services. Of-course, opposite party is ex-parte, but the complainant has not produced on record any sufficient proofs to prove that he has paid Rs.7500/- to opposite party for availing loan facility. He has also not produced any account statement except his and affidavit of one Javed, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C3) on file to prove that he has paid Rs.7500/- to opposite party. Mere filing of affidavit cannot prove the case of the complainant. Moreover there is no document on file to show that The Arvind Kumar (opposite party) is agent of any finance company or he had given any assurance to the complainant for providing any loan facility. As such, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in services or unfair trade practices on the part of opposite party. In view of what has been discussed above, the complaint is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court of law for the redressal of his grievance by leading cogent evidence. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced 20-03-2024 - (Priti Malhotra)
President (Sharda Attri) Member
| |
