Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/531

Jeevandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bombay Coins - Opp.Party(s)

A.N.Juneja Adv.

08 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No:  531 dated 25.11.2021.                                       Date of decision: 08.11.2024. 

 

Jeevandeep Singh aged 46 years, resident of House No.1775, Fateh Villas, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.141010. 98726-57675.                                                                                                     ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Bombay Coins & Stamps, 9/15, Morarji Velji Building, 1^st Floor, Room No.30, Dr. M.B. Velkar Street, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002, India.                                                                                                            …..Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. A.N. Juneja, Advocate

For OP                           :         Ms. Shalini Joshi, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the complainant came to know about Bombay Auction’s on 27.12.2020 and he participated in the auction and became a successful bidder for one Silver-Numismatic Coin HSN Code:97050090 for Rs.54,000/- being highest hammer price. But the OP issued the tax invoice dated 27.12.2020 for a sum of Rs.56,842/- after adding GST for Rs.2721/- and shipping charges, which the complainant paid on 02.02.2021 through his bank account in Kotak Mahindra Bank. The complainant stated that he did not receive the same coin as per commitment made by the OP at given place of delivery as the complainant requested the OP to hand over this coin to his representative Harjit Kaur Bhatia, D-142, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024. The complainant further stated that the said coin was an antique piece coin and the OP charges the hefty amount from him. The OP made lame excuse on account of non-delivery of the coin and even did not generate any e-way bill nor made insurance of said postal item which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. According to the complainant he is entitled to refund of the said amount along with compensation as he has not received the coin. The complainant requested the OP many times upon which the OP told to lodge claim with postal authorities but no details of lodging of claim was provided by the OP. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 03.04.2021 upon the OP through Sh. A.N. Juneja, Advocate but needful was not done despite receipt of legal notice. Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OP to pay the amount of Rs.56,842/- of the coin along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.21,000/-.

2.                Initially, the OP did not appear despite service of notice and as such, the OP was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.05.2022. However, the OP filed Revision Petition No.71 of 2022 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, Punjab for setting aside exparte order dated 11.05.2022. The Hon’ble State Commission vide is order dated 13.12.2022 while allowing the said revision petition, set aside the exparte order dated 11.05.2022 passed by this Commission and also directed this Commission to allow the petitioner/OP to join the proceedings by affording opportunity not only to plead his case by filing reply but also to lead evidence in support of its defence and also directed to decide the case a fresh on merits in accordance with law after hearing the parties.

                   On 12.01.2023, the OP appeared and filed “Limited Affidavit-In Reply” and assailed the maintainability of the complaint and claimed its dismissal on the ground that the complainant has dishonestly and mischievously suppressed the various vital, material and relevant facts and documents from this Hon’ble Commission. He further stated that the present complaint as taken out as such framed and filed by the complainant is not only mischievous and fraudulent but also thoroughly misconceived, malicious and is without any cause of action. The complainant has also attacked the conduct of the complainant as well as his counsel for dishonesty suppressing the reply sent by the OP to the legal notice of the complainant in para No.5 and 6 of its reply. The OP has also reproduced the contents of the reply in verbatim manner for the prudent scrutiny of this Commission in para No.6 of its reply.

                   The OP has further stated that that the complainant has been allegedly and purportedly the most reputed dealers, entrepreneurs, professional consultants and/or firms, organizations and business concerns and is/are commercially and professionally dealing in ‘Antiques and Numismatists’, for more than 100 years old, etc. doing huge and large scale business in the various firm names and style of M/s. Antique Arts, M/s. Satluj Numismatics Gallery, M/s. Numis, M/s. Sikh Coins etc. The OP has further averred that the complainant in the past having substantially dealt with it in the past also and that thereby having certain business relationship as the dealers, entrepreneurs, professional Numismatists, consultants and/or the firms, organizations and the business concerns and that he having one of the firm in the name of M/s. Antique Arts having its registered address at #1175, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana, Punjab-141010 vide having the registered mobile No.9872657675 and that, undisputedly, ever since the year 2014, the complainant has/had/have the business relationship with the OP, as he on behalf of his aforesaid firms/concerns having dealt with the OP in the past as well. The OP further stated that the invoice No.B/SALE27/162 dated 02.02.2021 having being agreed to be made in favour of and in the name of M/s. Antique Arts, Fateh Villas #1775, Sector 32A, Chandigarh, Punjab vide its GSTIN/UIN:03ACLPS1009G1ZX for which and therefore, by virtue of which, accordingly, the said M/s. Antique Arts having made the consequential payment thereof on 02.02.2021 for Rs.56,842/- from the current account of the said M/s. Antique Arts maintained with the Kotak Mahindra Bank, vide current account No.4711207468 on 02.02.2021, for an amount of Rs.56,482/- by NEFT dated 02.02.2021 vide its UTR No.999319022376, Beneficiary name – M/s. Bombay Coins and Stamps. The OP further clarified that the complainant is undisputedly a sole proprietor of the said proprietary concern M/s.Antique Arts which is undisputedly a Trader having its GSTIN/UIN:03ACLPS1009S1ZX and that the said M/s. Antique Arts having dealt and executed the contract in terms of the Final Invoice No.B/SALE27/162 dated 02.02.2021 with the OP and that, the said proprietary concern of the aforesaid mischievous complainant having dealt with the OP, which undoubtedly and undisputedly demonstrates that the complainant is holding the current bank account bearing No.0414069440 in the name of M/s. Antique Arts at the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Ludhiana Branch and that undisputedly vide the UTR No.999319022376 dated 02.02.2021, in terms of para 12 of the said specific reply of the OP dated 20.09.2021 to the pre-dated letter dated 05.06.2021 (however, falsely portrayed to be of dated 05.06.2021, but undisputedly posted on 05.07.2021). The OP has assailed the complaint on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction, suppression of material facts by the complainant and also assailed the maintainability of the complaint.  

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C6 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Sanjay Ramniklal Gosalia, Proprietor of the OP along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R12 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents as well as written statement, affidavit and documents produced on record by both parties.

6.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased one Silver-Numismatic coin for Rs.56,842/- vide invoice Ex. C1 = Ex. R11 from the OP including shipping charges of Rs.120/- as well as GST to the tune of Rs.2721/-. The shiping charges were paid for delivering the said coin at consignee address at Fateh Villas, #1775, Sector 32A, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana. The fact is clear that the coin was to be delivered by the OP to the complainant at the given address. However, the destination was changed by the complainant from Ludhiana to New Delhi and requested the OP to deliver the coin to the representative of the complainant namely Harjit Kaur Bhatia at D-142, Defence Colony, New Delhi. According to the OP, the coin was dispatched through India Post  but no postal receipt has been produced by the OP on record. Further after appraisal of evidence, it came on record that the coin dispatched by the OP lost in transit and it never reached to the sister of the complainant. Admittedly, no claim before the postal authorities was ever lodged by the OP nor any such record has been brought before this Commission. The sum and substance is that the coin purchased by the complainant for the auction price of Rs.54,000/- was never delivered to the complainant at Ludhiana or to his representative at New Delhi despite the charging of shipping charges of Rs.120/-. Therefore, the OP has rendered deficient services to the complainant. So, in these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to refund of invoice amount as per Ex. C1 = Ex. C11 minus taxes along with interest @8% from the date of invoice i.e. 27.12.2020 till date of its actual payment and the complainant is also awarded a composite costs of Rs.5,000/-.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the OP to refund of invoice amount as per Ex. C1 = Ex. C11 minus taxes along with interest @8% from the date of invoice i.e. 27.12.2020 till date of its actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OP shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.   

8.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.11.2024.

Gobind Ram.