Haryana

Karnal

CC/714/2021

Hari Prakash Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sajan Paints Sanitasry And Hardware - Opp.Party(s)

Kuldeep Sharma

16 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 714 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.23.12.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:18.09.2023

 

Hari Prakash Advocate son of Shri Subhash Chand, resident of village Sanwat, Sub Tehsil Nigdhu, District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Sajan Paints Sanitary and Hardware, Bir Badlwa Road, Nigdhu, tehsil Nigdhu, District Karnal, through its proprietor/partner Mr. Harjeet Singh.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

       

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik……Member 

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Sh.Kuldeep Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri J.B. Rohilla, counsel for the opposite party.

 

                    (Vineet Kaushik, Member)

ORDER:                     

          

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is the resident of above address and he is constructing/renovating his house and the complainant was in need of some sanitary/hardware products and for that purpose, complainant approached to the OP for getting the sanitary product. The complainant vide bill no.725 dated 18.10.2021 purchased goods of Rs.2750/- and paid cash to the OP same time. The complainant further vide bill no.784 dated 22.10.2021 purchased goods of Rs.2544/- and further vide bill no.849 dated 24.10.2021 purchased goods of Rs.1041/-. Thereafter, complainant had returned some articles to the OP amounting to Rs.840/- and Rs.1041/- and in this manner an amount of Rs.1701/- is pending against the complainant. On the very next day, OP made a telephonic call to the complainant and demanding outstanding amount of Rs.2742/- on that demand, complainant told to the OP that an amount is Rs.1701/- is outstanding as  he had returned some goods and said that please check the account. Then OP checked his account and admits his mistake but received Rs.1941/- i.e. Rs.240/- excess from the complainant through online transaction. Complainant requested the OP to return Rs.240/- to the complainant but inspite of returning the said amount, OP started threatening the complainant for dire consequences.

2.             It is further averred that OP committing fraud upon his customer as well as the Government, because the OP not issued genuine bill with GSTIN number and caused huge financial loss to the Government for not paying tax to the government and also not followed the rules and norms of Government and earning black money by not paying tax to the Government. Thereafter, complainant sent a legal notice to the OP but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

3.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant by taking the benefit of his advocacy firstly tried to put undue pressure upon the OP and thereafter threatened to the OP to see the OP. The OP issued the bill in favour of complainant with tax, then the complainant himself requested to OP to issue simple bill without tax and hence the complainant himself cheated the Government. The complainant except the abovesaid bills also purchased the goods of Rs.360/- and the complainant has to pay Rs.2061/- to the OP, but the complainant forcibly/without clearing his dues sent only Rs.1941/- through online transaction and in this manner an amount of Rs.120/- is still pending against the complainant. Complainant himself refused to pay the GST and get simple bill without GST. OP always preferred to parties to pay tax to the government. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill dated 18.10.2021 of Rs.2750/- Ex.C1, copy of bill dated 22.10.2021 of Rs.2544/- Ex.C2, copy of bill dated 24.10.2021 Ex.C3, copy of notice dated 03.10.2021 Ex.C4, copy of acknowledgement Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 02.11.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Harjeet Singh proprietor Ex.O1, copy of kacha bill dated 22.10.2021 of Rs.2544/- Ex.O2, copy of pacca bill dated 22.10.2021 Ex.O3, copy of bill  dated 24.10.2021 after return of some products Ex.O4, copy of handwritten bill ExO5, copy of payment through UPI Ex.O6 and closed the evidence on 24.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

8.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased some sanitary items of Rs.3582/- from the OP. Complainant returned some items to OP and an amount of Rs.1701/- was pending against the complainant but OP received Rs.1941/-  through online transaction i.e. Rs.240/- excess. Complainant requested the OP to return the said amount but inspite of returning the said amount, OP started threatening to him and also misbehaved with him and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint with compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony and towards the litigation expenses.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that  OP issued the bill in favour of complainant with tax, then the complainant himself requested to OP to issue simple bill without tax. The complainant except the abovesaid bills also purchased the goods of Rs.360/- and the complainant has to pay Rs.2061/- to the OP, but the complainant forcibly/without cleared his dues sent only Rs.1941/- through online transaction and in this manner an amount of Rs.120/- is still pending against the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           Admittedly, complainant purchased some sanitary products from the OP. Complainant has alleged that, he retruned some goods to the OP and an amount is Rs.1701/- was outstanding but OP received Rs.1941/- i.e. Rs.240/- excess from the complainant. Complainant requested the OP to return Rs.240/- to the complainant but OP did not return the same. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant. To prove his version, complainant has placed on file copy of bill dated 18.10.2021 of Rs.2750/- Ex.C1, copy of bill dated 22.10.2021 of Rs.2544/- Ex.C2 and copy of bill dated 24.10.2021 Ex.C3. On perusal of bill Ex.C3, it is clearly proved that OP has received Rs.240/- excess from the complainant. OP has relied upon the tax invoice Ex.O3, in the said tax invoice GST and SGST has been charged from the complainant. OP has also relied upon the cash memo Ex.O2. Same has been issued without GST and SGST. OP itself has issued two bills on the same amount i.e. Rs.2544/- each, the best reason known to him. Thus, the act of the OP by receiving Rs.240/- excess from the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade parties. Hence, complainant is entitled for the said amount alongwith compensation for harassment, mental agony and towards the litigation expenses.

12.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund Rs.240/- to the complainant. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.1000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:16.10.2023                                    

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                                Member                        Member