State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Brij Mohan vs Suneha Printing Press on 15 June, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.568 of 2019
Date of Institution: 29.08.2019
Reserved on : 30.05.2022
Date of decision : 15.06.2022
Brij Mohan S/o Late Sh.Kewal Ram, R/o H.No.108-B, Type IV, RCF
Township, Kapurthala.
........Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Suneha Printing Press through Sh.Baldev Singh opposite Main
Gate, Rail Coach Factory, Hussainpur (Kapurthala).
2. M/s Suneha Printing Press through Sh.Bhajan Singh opposite Main
Gate, Rail Coach Factory, Hussainpur (Kapurthala).
Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal U/S 15 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 against the order
dated 26.07.2019 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now
Commission), Kapurthala.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued By:-
For the appellant : Sh.Brij Mohan, in person
For the respondents : Sh.Sagar Sethi, Advocate
FA No.568 of 2019
2
URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER
Sh.Brij Mohan-appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'The Act') for modification of the Order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now Commission), Kapurthala (in short 'the District Commission'), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was partly accepted.
2. It would be apposite to mention, that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Brief facts of the case as made out in the complaint filed before District Commission are that on 15.12.2016 the complainant gave an order for printing of wedding invitation cards of his daughter's marriage to the opposite party-M/s Suneha Printing Press. The complainant provided the complete printing material of invitation card. It was further mentioned in the complaint that while checking the first proof of card on 17.12.2016, the complainant made various spelling mistakes and asked OP for correction of the same. Thereafter, he visited and contacted OPs on different dates 19.12.2016, 30.12.2016, 07.01.2017, 08.01.2017, 09.01.2017 and 10.01.2017 for making corrections in the card and asked OP to complete the printing work but the OPs made request for extension of time for a period upto 15.01.2017. The complainant showed in the final proof of the card to his daughter but she noticed that still two lines in Hindi matter were left over/missing. She also noticed some spelling mistakes. Again on 11.01.2017, the complainant visited OPs but OP No.2 refused to listen the grievances of the complainant and refused to print the card and torn all the papers and put them in dustbin. It was further mentioned in the complaint FA No.568 of 2019 3 that the complainant had paid Rs.2000/- in advance. The prayer was made in the complaint that OPs be directed to refund the advance amount of Rs.2000/- with interest and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment along with Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.
4. Upon notice, OPs filed joint reply and contested the complaint and denied the averments made in the complaint. It was also mentioned in the reply that the complainant was not the consumer of the OPs, as they had not provided any service to him. The complainant was a chronic litigant and filed a number of cases against different persons just to blackmail them. The complaint was stated to be time barred. OPs denied deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. On appraisal of averments made in the complaint, reply, evidence and arguments raised by counsel for the parties the District Commission partly accepted the complaint. Para No.11 of the order passed by the District Commission is relevant and the same is reproduced as under:-
11. "In view of above detailed discussion, complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to reimburse the advance amount of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant with interest@ 12% per annum from 17.12.2016 till realization. Further OPs are directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment and also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/-. Compliance of the order be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order." FA No.568 of 2019 4
6. The appellant/complainant being not satisfied with the relief granted by the District Commission has filed the present appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the District Commission. The appellant while appearing in person has vehemently argued that the District Commission has not discussed the facts, cogent evidence and circumstances relating to the case in detail and just passed a cursory order by granting meager amount to the appellant/complainant. He has further argued that the respondents/OPs had tried to mis-lead the District Commission by putting curtain over their committed mis-conduct, illegalities, proven deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice by flatly denying the occurrence of the incidence dated 11.01.2017. The respondents/OPs had not produced even a single piece of evidence in support of their reply and not filed even an affidavit in support thereof. Moreover, respondent No.2/OP No.2 had badly humiliated, abused and man-handled the appellant/complainant regarding the incident, for which the appellant/complainant had filed a complaint against the OPs to the Police Station, Sultanpur Lodhi also. However, no action was taken by the police. Rather, the respondents/OPs had filed frivolous and fabricated complaint to the RCF Administration against the appellant/complainant, whereas the RCF Administration had no business at all with any outside activity or law or any problem. Appellant/complainant has further submitted that the District Commission has not relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2002(2) C.L.T. Page 489 wherein the former Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. A.S. Anand observed as under:-
"It is not only merely the alleged harm or mental pain, agony or physical discomfort, loss of salary and emoluments etc. suffered by the appellant which is the issue, it is also the quality of conduct FA No.568 of 2019 5 committed by the respondents upon which attention is required to founded in a case of proven negligence."
Relying upon said judgment, the appellant has contended that he was entitled for much higher relief as prayed by him in para (ii) and (iii) of the prayer made in the complaint before the District Commission.
7. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents/OPs has contended that the appellant was a "chronic litigant" many persons have been dragged into litigation. The delay as alleged by the appellant in printing if caused was due to his own act and conduct as a number of corrections were made time and again by him and for that the respondents/opposite parties cannot be held liable. The onus was upon the appellant/complainant to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, for which counsel has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case SGS India Limited Vs. Dolphin International Limited, Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 decided on 06.10.2021.
8. We have heard the appellant at length while appearing in person by granting sufficient time as well the counsel for the OPs and have also thoroughly perused the record of the case.
9. On close scrutiny of the record and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2002(2) C.L.T. Page 489, we are of the considered view that due to action/inaction on the part of the OPs, the appellant/complainant has suffered a lot at the hands of respondents/OPs as the marriage of his daughter was fixed for 21.02.2017. Not only the appellant had suffered due to mis-behavior and abusive treatment given to him by the OPs/respondents as reflected in the documents i.e. Ex-C-2, Ex- C-3, Ex-C-4, Ex-C-8 and Ex-C-11 as well as the affidavit of the witness FA No.568 of 2019 6 Balwant Singh but he had to engage some other person to get the marriage cards printed for which he had to incur more expenses. However, some of the allegations regarding misbehaviour and other allegations cannot be considered under the jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Act, being the summary trial. Therefore, for the proper redressal of the same, the complainant has to seek his remedy before the appropriate Court by way of adducing evidence.
10. However, the allegations as alleged by the complainant regarding "unfair trade practice" are not worth accepting as no evidence has been produced on record to substantiate said allegations. The appellant has only placed an order of the printing of the wedding cards with respondents and except that, no other customer has made any such complaint of misbehaviour on the part of the respondents. Hence, this allegation is rejected.
11. The refusal of the OPs/respondents to print out the marriage cards for the wedding of his daughter, despite a numbers of visits the appellant/complainant was harassed and humiliated and he had to get printed the marriage cards from some other person for which the appellant/complainant had to spend an amount of Rs.13,000/-. The District Commission has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.13,000/- including compensation and litigation charges.
12. Accordingly, we partly allow the appeal of the appellant/complainant by modifying the impugned order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the District Commission by directing respondents/OPs to refund an amount of Rs.2,000/- paid as advance by the appellant/complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. instead of 12% p.a., w.e.f. 17.12.2016 till its realization FA No.568 of 2019 7 in view of the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s. Hareshwar Enterprises (P) Ltd. & Ors. In Civil Appeal No.7033 of 2009 decided on 18.08.2021. However, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.13,000/-, which had been spend on printing the cards/box from other person. Respondents/OPs are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses only for purposes of typing etc. as the appellant has appeared personally to argue his case not through any counsel.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases and the pandemic of COVID-19.
(Justice Daya Chaudhary) President (Rajinder Kumar Goyal) Member (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member June 15, 2022 Rupinder 2