Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/339

Sh.Pardeep Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lovely Tiles - Opp.Party(s)

A.B.Sharma Adv.

03 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 339 dated 09.12.2020                          

                             Date of decision: 03.08.2022. 

Sh.Pardeep Gupta s/o Sh.Hans Raj Gupta r/o 908/2, St.No.16/3, Punjab Mata Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                     ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1.Lovely Tiles St.No.15, Punjab Mata Nagar, Near Chhabra Dairy, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, through its authorized Person, Sh.Gurvinderpal Singh.

2.Jindal Tiles, Panj Peer Road, Hambran Road, Ludhiana through its authorized person.

                                                                                      …..Opposite parties

               Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWIDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.A.B.Sharma, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh.G.S.Panesar, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he approached the OP1 for the month of February 2020 for purchase of floor tiles. The complainant placed an order with OP1 for the purchase of tiles and other related material. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.66,200/- to the OPs, out of which, a sum of Rs.25,400/- was paid in the account of OP2 on the asking of OP1. OP2 is stated to be an associate of the OP1 who had promised that he would arrange the material from the OP2 at his own. However, even after receiving the amount of Rs.66,200/-, the OP1 supplied the material worth Rs.15,000/- only to the complainant and the remaining material was not supplied. OP1 and OP2 also did not issue any receipts or bills to the complainant qua the amount of Rs.15,000/- or nor issued the complainant a total bill of Rs.66,200/-. Thus, the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice by not issuing the proper bills and receipts. The material supplied by the OPs is also defective. The complainant requested the OPs many times to supply the entire material and also to replace the defective material supplied to the complainant but to no avail. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OPs be directed to supply the material of Rs.66,200/- or in the alternative, the OPs be made to refund the amount of Rs.66,200/-. It has further been requested that the OPs be directed to replace the defective material of Rs.15,000/- or in the alternative, be made to refund the amount of Rs.15000/-. It has further been requested that the OPs be made pay interest on the amount of Rs.66,200/- and be also made to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.

2.                Upon notice, OPs did not turn up despite service through registered posts and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 31.03.2021.

3.                It is pertinent to mention that subsequently, the OP1 appeared and filed an application for seeking permission to join the proceedings which was allowed vide order dated 25.10.2021. 

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, no evidence has been led by the OP1.

6.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant and OP1 and have also gone through the record.

7.                During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant has argued that the OPs received a sum of Rs.66,200/- from the complainant against supply of tiles and other related material but the material was not supplied. Counsel for the complainant has further contended that the OP1 supplied the material worth of Rs.15,000/- only which was defective while the remaining material was not supplied at all. Counsel for the complainant has further contended that out of the amount of Rs.66,200/-, Rs.25,400/- was deposited in the account of the OP2 as is evident from bank passbook Ex.C4. In the given circumstances, according to the counsel for the complainant, the OPs must be directed either to refund the remaining amount or be made to supply the goods against the remaining amount or in the alternative, the OPs be made to refund the money received from the complainant.

8.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 has argued that no amount was ever received by the OP1 on behalf of itself or on behalf of the OP2. Counsel for the OP1 has further contended that the OP1 never asked the complainant to pay any amount to OP2 as he has no link whatsoever with the OP2. Counsel for the OP1 has further contended that the OP1 gets the tiles fitted and charges labour etc for the purpose. Counsel for the OP1 has further contended that since no amount was received by the OP1 from the complainant, the question of supplying any material or return any amount does not arise. Counsel for the OP1 has further contended that document Ex.C2 relied upon by the complainant is neither an invoice or bill nor it can be treated as a receipt. Therefore, on the basis of the document Ex.C2, it cannot be said that an amount of Rs.66,200/- was received by the OP1 from the complainant. Counsel for the OP1 has further prayed for dismissal of complaint as against the OP1.

9.                We have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions raised by counsel for the complainant and OP1.

10.              By way of this complaint, the complainant has claimed that he paid a sum of Rs.66,200/- to the OP1 on the basis of document Ex.C2. It has also been claimed that out of amount of Rs.66,200/-, the complainant paid Rs.25,400/- to the OP2 at the instance of the OP1 as is evident from bank passbook Ex.C4. A minute perusal of document Ex.C2 makes it clear that this document is neither an invoice nor a receipt. This document Ex.C2 is even not signed by the OP1 and it appears to be a rough estimate only. Therefore, on the basis of this document Ex.C2, it cannot be said that the OP1 received a sum of Rs.66,200/- from the complainant. If the factum of receiving of the amount of Rs.66,200/- by the OP1 is not proved, then question of supplying any material or rendering any services by the OP1 to the complainant does not arise. Therefore, no case of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice is made out as against the OP1.

11.              So far as OP2 is concerned, it has been claimed by the complainant that he deposited a sum of Rs.25,400/- in the account of the OP2 for supply of tiles. It has also claimed that the OPs supplied tiles to the complainant only for an amount of Rs.15,000/- without any bill. Since the OP2 has not contested this case, the evidence that a sum of Rs.25,400/- was deposited in the account of the OP2 against supply of goods stands proved on record especially when in the bank passbook Ex.C4 there is an entry dated 11.02.2020 where an amount of Rs.25,400/-  is shown to have been debited in the account of the complainant and credited in the account of Jindal Tiles. Since the OP2 has supplied tiles worth of Rs.15000/-, it means that the OP2 is liable to pay/refund Rs.10,400/- to the complainant.

12.              So far as the allegations that the tiles supplied by the OPs of amount of Rs.15,000/- were defective is concerned, to prove these allegations, the complainant has not led any worthwhile evidence as to how the tiles supplied by the OPs were defective. Therefore, that part of the case of the complainant does not stand proved on record for want of evidence.

13.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed ex-parte as against the OP2 with an order that the OP2 shall refund the amount of Rs.10,400/- to the complainant along with composite cost of Rs.3000/-. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Complaint as against OP1 is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

14.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

15.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within the statutory period.

                           (Jaswinder Singh)                             (K.K.Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:03.08.2022.

Gurpreet Sharma