Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/630/2015

Ranjit Singh Pannu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Eureka Forbes Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Arvinder Kumar Adv. & Rajinder Parsad Pandey Adv.

05 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	630 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	02.11.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	05.04.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Ranji Singh Pannu, R/o H.No.1070, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

The Manager, Eureka Forbes Ltd., SCO No.14, First Floor, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.

 

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Rajinder Pandey, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Amit Mehta, Advocate

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant had placed an order for installation of CCTV Cameras vide quotation dated 1.4.2015 for Rs.1,35,512/- at his H.No.1070, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh. It is averred that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.67,756/- as 50% amount in advance in the account of Opposite Party Company (Annexure C-1 to C-3).  It is also averred that incidentally the complainant cancelled the said order and informed about it to Leela Dutt, Representative of Opposite Party verbally as well as telephonically and thereafter, send letters for refunding the amount (Ann.C-4 & C-5). It is asserted that on contacting the Opposite Party company, the complainant vide Ann.C-6, dated 25.8.2015 was informed that amount has been given to Mr.Leela Dutt, but when Mr.Leela Dutt was contacted, he vide letter Ann.C-7 informed that he has not received any amount.  Ultimately, the complainant sent legal notice (Ann.C-8) to the Opposite Party, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply.  It is stated that the Opposite Party Company received a sum of Rs.67,756/- through NEFT for settling the account of complainant already going at Nihal Petrol Pump, Amritsar as the complainant used to get the subsidy from IOCL for installation of CCTV.  It is also stated that the disputed amount was received on account of installation of CCTV at Nihal Petrol Pump, Amritsar, and the Opposite Party Company installed CCTV Cameras at his petrol pump as well as his residence at Chandigarh.  It is stated that the company never received any order from complainant for installation of CCTV camera at his residence, so there is no question of its cancellation. 

 

         It is pleaded that the former employee of Opposite Party Company, namely, Leela Dutt committed a fraud with the company as well as with esteemed customers of the company by receiving money from them in cash, but not depositing the same in company’s account and the company is receiving numerous complaints of cheating with the customers in this regard.  It is also pleaded that as per records of the company, said Leela Dutt got issued worth Rs.1.00 lakh in the name of the complainant Ranjit Singh Pannu, so as per the record of the company, the amount of Rs.33,000/- is due towards customer/complainant which is a result of fraud played by Leela Dutt. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint. 

 

3]       Rejoinder has been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply. 

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The complainant has preferred the present complaint against the OP on the score that in order to install Wired Intrusion Alarm System at his filling station as well as his residence sought the quotation of different equipments from the OP, which were supplied as Ann.C-1 quoting the entire price of set of gadgets amounting to Rs.1,35,512/-, in pursuance of which the complainant made a payment of Rs.67,756/- vide Ann.C-2 through NEFT mode from his savings account maintained with Yes Bank, Chandigarh, as per Ann.C-2 & C-3.  However, the complainant thereafter, cancelled the order for the supply of afore quoted equipments and sought the refund of his amount of Rs.67756/-, which was not released citing different reasons by the OP.  Thus giving rise to the present dispute between the parties and the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, has sought the quoted relief. 

 

7]       The Opposite Party while contesting the claim of the complainant has claimed that the complainant was already their customer and that the Opposite Party was engaged for other installations prior to this episode, when he preferred to cancel his order placed with the Opposite Party on 06.04.2015, while making the payment of Rs.67756/-. The Opposite Party further claimed that one of its employee’ namely Leela Dutt, who was working as Territory Executive, was on the job when the complainant had placed the order and was dealing with him on day-to-day basis.  The OP further claimed that its Executive deputed for the purpose was in the process of getting the deal finalized, but in the meanwhile left the services of the OP and even defrauded the company (OP) by making some unauthorized financial transaction and having received cash from it as well as its prospective customers. 

 

8]       The OP further claimed that it was ready to honour the business commitment as per the desire of the complainant only if the complainant was ready to make good the remaining payment of Rs.33,000/-, which was on account of the fraud committed by Mr.Leela Dutt, as he had received Rs.1.00 lakh from the company on account of the complainant, maintained with the company.  Thus claiming no deficiency in service on its part, has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

9]       We have perused the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the opinion that the present complaint of the complainant deserves merit, as the OP having admitted the placing of order of Wired Intrusion Alarm System by the complainant amounting to Rs.1,35,512/- in total and having received Rs.67,756/- through NEFT on 6.4.2015, failed to deliver the said equipments.  Nor it has come forward to declare that it was still open to the honouring of its contractual obligation towards the complainant. 

 

10]      The complainant has placed on record a copy of handwritten statement dated 25.8.2015 under the signatures of Mr.Leela Dutt, son of Netar Singh, employee of the Opposite Party, along with the office address of the OP and his personal mobile number, declaring that he had personally satisfied the complainant about the equipment while taking the order vide quotation dated 01.04.2015 and also having received Rs.67,756/- through NEFT in the account of the OP.  The said statement also discloses that the Opposite Party though was inclined to refund the money so received from the complainant, but asked his indulgence for seeking a month’s time to revert the payment in the account of the complainant.  However, the Opposite Party, did not pay any heed to the repeated request of the complainant on this score. 

 

11]      In view of the Ann.C-7 as well as the legal notice serviced upon the OP, there is no room left with the OP to wriggle out of the present dispute, as it had failed to honour the commitment to the complainant while accepting the part consideration amount of Rs.67,756/- and even went to the extent of dilly-dallying the matter on one pretext or the other and finally declaring through their reply that one of its executive Mr.Leela Dutt, had committed a fraud with the company by receiving an odd Rs.One Lakh on behalf of the complainant, which has not  been proved by it in any manner. 

 

12]      It is a settled preposition of law that for all purposes a company is liable for all the act of omission and commission of its agent and employees and it cannot escape its liabilities towards its customers for whatsoever the dispute may exist between the principal and its agent or the employer or the employee.  The act of illegally retaining an amount of Rs.67,756/- by the OP, after the complainant having cancelled his order, amounts to deficiency in service towards the complainant, for which he deserves to be adequately compensated. 

 

13]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in rendering service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OP. The Opposite party is directed as under:-

 

[a]      To refund an amount of Rs.67,756/- to the complainant, along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit till its payment;

 

[b]      To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service.

[c]     To pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall also be liable, to pay interest @18% on the amount Rs.67,756/- to the complainant, instead of 9% p.a, from the date of deposit till its payment and also on the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

 

        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

05^th April, 2016                                                            

                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER