Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/97

Baldev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vijay Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Sangeeta Sharma

23 Aug 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

CC No. :                     97 of 2020

Date of Institution:       02.07.2020

Date of Decision :        23.08.2021

 

Baldev Singh aged about 58 years son of Amar Singh son of Surain Singh r/o Street No.15, Bhan Singh Colony, Faridkot, P.S. City Faridkot, District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Vijay Kumar son of Sadhu Ram, Prop./ Partner of M/s Sadhu Bricks Co. (Brick Kiln), Talwandi Road, Near Modern Central Jail, Faridkot.
2. M/s Sadhu Bricks Co. (Brick Kiln), Talwandi Road, Near Modern Central Jail, Faridkot through its Prop./Partner Vijay Kumar son of Sadhu Ram of Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                            ....Opposite parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President,   

                     Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

C.C.No. 97/2020

 

Present:      Ms Sangeeta Sharma, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  O.P.s  Exparte.

ORDER

(Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member)

                            Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against  seeking directions to them to supply remaining 17,500/- bricks or to refund the price amount of said bricks alongwith interest and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in January, 2020 complainant wanted to construct his house for which he required bricks and on assurance of OP-1that bricks made by OP-2 are of good quality, complainant placed order for 25000/-bricks at the rate of Rs.4400/-for 1000 bricks. Complainant issued undated cheque for Rs.90,000/-in favour of OP-2 and OP-1 assured complainant that cheque would be encashed by OP-2 after supply of bricks to complainant, but without supplying bricks,  got encashed the same on 28.01.2020. In March, 2020,  supplied one trolley containing 2500 bricks at his address and at that time forced him to pay Rs.10,000/- more despite the fact that complainant had already paid Rs.90,000/-to . Complainant paid

C.C. No. 97/2020

Rs.10,000/-under pressure to  and thereafter, OP sent two trolleys more containing 2500 bricks each and in this way,  have supplied only 7500 bricks to complainant and 17,500/-bricks more are required to be provided by .  On 23.03.2020 Lockdown was imposed by Government which was withdrawn in June, 2020 and thereafter, complainant made several requests to  to provide remaining bricks, but  did not send any bricks. As per contract,  are liable to provide the same, but they did not pay any heed to fulfil the terms of contract made between the parties.

3                                            The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 09.07.2020, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                      Despite service of notice to  through Process Server as well as publication in daily vernacular, nobody appeared on their behalf either in person or through counsel. It is presumed that  are not interested in contesting the complaint. Therefore, vide order dated 5.11.2020,  were proceeded against exparte.

5                                        The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, copy of cheque dated 28.01.2020 for Rs.90,000/-drawn from

C.C.No. 97/2020

Punjab National Bank Ex C-1, copy of message received from Punjab National Bank regarding debit of Rs.90,000/-from the account of complainant Ex C-2, legal notice issued by complainant through his counsel on 08.06.2020 Ex C-3 and postal receipts Ex C-4 and Ex C-5 and then, closed the same.

6                                      As there is no rebuttal from  side, therefore, we have heard the ld counsel for complainant and have also carefully gone through the affidavit and  documents placed on record by complainant and have found out that grievance of the complainant is that he placed order for supply of 25000/-bricks at the rate of Rs.4400/-for 1000 bricks. As per complainant, he has paid Rs.1,00,000/-to  i.e Rs.90,000/-through cheque which was got encashed by  on 28.01.2020 and Rs.10,000/-at the time of first delivery of 2500 bricks to him. from the perusal of document Ex C-1which is copy of undated cheque for 90,000/-, pleading of complainant is proved that he paid Rs.90,000/-to  through cheque and careful scrutinization of Ex C-2 that is copy of message received on phone of complainant, further reveals the fact that amount of Rs.90,000/-was got encashed by  and it was duly debited from the account of complainant on 28.01.2020. Thus, there remains no doubt that complainant has paid Rs.90,000/-to .  Further, legal notice issued by complainant to  for redressal of his grievance by way of providing remaining bricks, also proves the allegations levelled by complainant against . Through his affidavit Ex CW-1, complainant has tried to

C.C. No. 97/2020

reiterate his pleadings. Moreover, they have no right to retain the amount of complainant if they have not supplied bricks to complainant as agreed between them. They have got enchased cheque for Rs.90,000/-but in lieu of that they supplied only 7500 bricks to complainant which completely illegal and unlawful. Liability for supplying remaining 17500/-bricks also lies with them that they failed to provide to complainant. However, it is observed that complainant has not placed on record any documentary or other evidence regarding payment of Rs.10,000/-paid by him to  in cash.

7                                          From the above discussion and documents produced by the complainant, we are fully convinced with the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case. Failure on the part of  in not providing remaining 17,500 bricks to complainant inspite of having received Rs.90,000/-from complainant amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part.     

8                                    From the careful perusal of the record and keeping in view the pleadings made by complainant, this Commission is fully convinced with the authenticity of documents produced by ld counsel for complainant and is of considered opinion that  have been deficient in services and there is trade mal practice on the part of  in not providing 17,500 remaining bricks to

C.C. No. 97/2020

complainant and they have also failed to refund the cost price for remaining 17,500 bricks. Hence, the present complaint is hereby allowed. Therefore,  are directed to refund the cost price of 17,500 bricks at the rate of Rs.4.40 paisa per brick after deducting Rs.20,000/-from the agreed amount of Rs.1,10,000/- because complainant has not produced on record any receipt, bill or  documentary evidence to prove the payment of Rs.10,000/-given by him in cash to  and as per record, he has paid only Rs.90,000/- to . Therefore,  are directed to refund Rs.57,000/-alongwith interest at the rate of 3 % per anum to complainant and are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs 3,000/-as litigation expenses to complainant. OPs are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Commission

Dated : 23.08.2021

 

 

(Param Pal Kaur)              (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

 Member                            President (Addl. Charge)