STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution:08.06.2018
Date of final hearing:04.05.2023
Date of pronouncement: 14.06.2023
First Appeal No.745 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Harcharan Singh son of Sh. Amar Singh, resident of village Batrohan, P.O. Naneola, Tehsil and District Ambala.
…..Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Kumar son of Sh. Mohan Lal, Main Sarafa Bazar, near Devi Dayal Dharamvir Jewellery, Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.
…..Respondent
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Argued By:- Appellant-Harcharan Singh in person.
Ms. Renu Bala Kamboj, proxy counsel for Sh. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Delay of 40 days in filing the present appeal stand condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.
2. Challenge in this appeal has been invited by complainant to the legality of order dated 16.03.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Kuruskshtra, vide which his complaint has been dismissed.
3. As per complainant’s case; he purchased gold ornaments from opposite party for marriage of his son, through his brother-in-law Gajjan Singh, resident of Shahabad and his wife Joginder Kaur. Total amount of Rs.1,79,335/- was paid on three different dates of year 2015. Precisely, Rs. 35,000/- was paid during August-2015; Rs. 60,000/- was paid on 24.08.2015 and Rs. 84,335/- was paid on 14.11.2015. OP handed over gold ornaments to him (complainant) on 14.11.2015. Complainant performed marriage of his son. Thereafter, he became doubtful on originality of gold ornaments prepared by OP. He contacted OP and told that gold ornaments prepared by him and given to complainant, are of inferior quality and of less weight. OP refused by saying that he has not prepared said gold articles and on asking of complainant’s relations; OP agreed that articles are of his shop. OP had been promising to adjust the weight and quality, but postponing the matter on one protest or other, though he had been agreeing that gold articles are of his shop and he stamped on same. It is pleaded that actual weight of gold articles was 55.210 gms and rate settled at the time of giving the amount to OP was Rs.25,270/- per 10 gm. Thus, it is alleged that OP has made fraud with complainant. He (complainant) issued legal notice to OP on 17.11.2016 but OP failed to receive it. On these allegations, complainant has prayed that direction be issued to OP to pay him Rs.50,000/- as cost of less quantity of gold ornaments and Rs.1,00,000/- for mental torture and harassment and inferior quality of gold ornament and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.
4. In proceedings of complaint before learned District Consumer Commission; OP was initially proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.04.2017. Complainant led evidence and closed the same on 01.06.2017. Thereafter application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings was filed by OP which was dismissed vide order dated 14.03.2018. Ultimately, vide order dated 16.03.2018 complainant’s complaint too has been dismissed on merits.
5. Feeling aggrieved complainant filed this appeal. It is contended that impugned order dated 16.03.2018 is illegal. Evidence has not been properly appreciated, which otherwise remained un-rebutted and unchallenged. It is urged that complainant has suffered financial loss and mental torture.
6. Per contra, though no defence has been raised by OP in proceedings before learned District Consumer Commission, yet his counsel did appeared in proceedings of this appeal before this Commission and supported the impugned order.
7. Burden of proof lay upon complainant alone to prove positive fact so pleaded that he purchased gold articles worth Rs.1,79,335/- in year 2015 from OP. At first, no receipt has been placed on record by complainant showing payment of Rs.35,000/- in August-2015, Rs.60,000/- on 24.08.2015 and Rs.84,335/- on 14.11.2015 to OP regarding purchase of gold ornaments. In the absence of any receipt, it cannot be presumed that complainant had purchased gold ornaments of value of Rs.1,79,335/- from respondent/OP. Also, there is no evidence on record that OP had ever acknowledged the entire genesis of complainant’s case that: gold ornaments are of his shop, so purchased in year 2015 by complainant, and that same are not only of inferior quality butalso of less weight.Thus veracity of these allegations remained on papers alone. No evidence,worth the name, has been brought on record showing that complainant got checked gold ornaments from some any expert goldsmith in that field, who has given expertreportpertaining to gold ornaments specifically saying therein, that gold ornaments are ofinferior quality and of less weight too. Having, miserably failed to discharge the elementary rule regarding burden to prove material facts as alleged; the complaint would obviously not survive at legal pedestal.
8. Admittedly, complainant had also not taken any legal recourse to initiate criminal action against respondent/OP on quality of his allegations of being defrauded by OP/respondent. No complaint before police has been filed in that context which could result in registration of FIR. Much less than that, even no private complaint has been filed at the behestof complainant in any court of law. On this quality of factual scenario, so put before the learned District Consumer Commission; complainant has been rightly non-suited.
9. Consequently, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 16.03.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Kurukshetra. It is maintained and affirmed. Present appeal, being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
10. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
11. Copy of this judgment be provided to the parties, free of cost, as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 14th June, 2023
Naresh Katyal
Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
D.K
