State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ms Reeta vs Sikandar Singh on 13 August, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.2112 of 2010.
Date of Institution: 14.12.2010.
Date of Decision: 13.08.2012.
Ms Reeta wife of Satpal, Resident of House No.1421, Sector 30-B,
Chandigarh.
.....Appellant.
Versus
Sikandar Singh S/o Sh. Prem Singh, Resident of Village Mehmadpur, Tehsil
Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
29.09.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh
Sahib.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Present:-Sh. S.K. Khurcha, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Ms Reeta, appellant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 29.09.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Sikander Singh, respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellant, making assertions that he contacted M/s Abroad Careers, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh, where Dinesh Kumar son of the appellant along with one Satpal met him and disclosed that his mother is also engaged in First Appeal No.2112 of 2010 2 consultancy services for immigration to send people to USA, Canada and UK, at lower consideration than other immigration agencies. This happened in the month of March, 2009. Son of the appellant prevailed upon the respondent and arranged a meeting with his mother Reeta at her house no.1421, Sector 30-B, Chandigarh where, a board denoting Reeta to be owner of the consultancy for the above countries, was displayed.
3. The appellant made the respondent to believe that she would arrange for passport, visa papers, air tickets and permanent employment and settlement in foreign country for a total consideration of Rs.12,52,000/- and explained that Rs.1,50,000/- are required for arranging visa and other documents, Rs.1.00 lac for the purpose of employment contract in the foreign country, Rs.2,000/- for passport and Rs.10,00,000/- for the cost of air ticket, lodging, boarding and service charges being rendered by the appellant.
4. The respondent paid Rs.2,52,000/- in cash on 30.04.2009 as part payment for the services to be rendered by the appellant and after about two months, the appellant contacted the respondent and made him to believe that all the papers are ready and he should pay the balance amount. The respondent demanded photocopy of the papers and he was told by the appellant that the papers have been deposited with embassy and the photocopies would be supplied to the respondent.
5. On 30.06.2009, the appellant accompanied by her son Dinesh Kumar came to the village of the respondent at Mehmadpur, Tehsil Bassi Pathanan and the respondent paid Rs.5.00 lacs in cash to the appellant in the presence of the witnesses. Another amount of Rs.5.00 lacs was paid to the appellant on 30.07.2009 at her residence in the presence of the witnesses. After receiving the entire amount, the appellant started making excuses and putting the matter off and finally refused to do the needful and there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.
6. On repeated demands made by the respondent, the appellant issued two cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- bearing cheque no.332942 dated First Appeal No.2112 of 2010 3 16.09.2009 and cheque no.332946 dated 15.05.2010 for Rs.10.00 lacs, but both the cheques were dishonoured and the respondent is entitled to Rs.12,52,000/- paid in cash, Rs.5.00 lacs as compensation for harassment, Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation and the same prayer was made.
7. The appellant did not contest the complaint before the District Forum and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 31.08.2010.
8. In his exparte evidence, respondent tendered his affidavit and certain documents.
9. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent, the learned District Forum observed that Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 show that the cheques, which were given by the appellant to the respondent for Rs.10.00 lacs, were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Ex.C-6 is the memo of cheque of Rs.2.52 lacs which was dishonored for the reason "drawer signature differs". It was further observed that the appellant has failed to pay back the money and keep her promise which amounts to deficiency in service. The complaint was allowed, directing the appellant to pay Rs.12.52 lacs to the respondent within one month from the receipt of copy of order, along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
10. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.09.2010, the appellant has come up in appeal.
11. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and have perused the record of the learned District Forum. We have also perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant and heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent.
12. In the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that the order passed by the District Forum is illegal and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The appellant has no firm or company in her name for sending the persons abroad and the respondent has concocted the story. The respondent being familiar to her son used to come to her house First Appeal No.2112 of 2010 4 and has stolen two cheques Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 and forged the signatures of the appellant and the appellant moved an application to SSP, Chandigarh for taking action against the respondent. No notice was served upon the appellant, nor any opportunity was given by the District Forum before passing the impugned order. The respondent obtained the impugned order from the District Forum, by playing fraud and misguiding the Forum. The respondent is not a consumer, as he has not paid any charges. No evidence was produced and the order under appeal is liable to be set aside.
13. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondent, that the impugned order is based on the evidence and material placed on file and is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same. The appellant was duly served, but she did not appear and contest the complaint and, now, this plea cannot be raised and the appeal deserves dismissal.
14. We have considered the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant as well as the oral submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent and have minutely scrutinized the entire record and material placed on the file.
15. The respondent filed the complaint and the notice was sent by the District Forum to the appellant, but the appellant refused to accept the same and was proceeded against exparte. The record of the District Forum shows that a registered letter was sent to the appellant on her residential address, but she refused to accept the same. Thus, the appellant intentionally and deliberately did not appear before the District Forum, to contest the complaint. This is also not the plea of the appellant that postal authorities made a false report.
16. The respondent before filing the complaint even sent the legal notice dated 02.07.2010 Ex.C-1. Postal receipt is Ex.C-2 , but the appellant never bothered to reply this notice or to clarify her stand. The respondent sent the cheque bearing no.332946 for Rs.10.00 lacs for encashment to State First Appeal No.2112 of 2010 5 Bank of Patiala, but the said cheque was dishonoured and the letter, cheque and memo of the bank are Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5. The cheque was dishonoured because of insufficient funds. Another cheque bearing no.332942 for Rs.2.52 lacs was also dishonoured. The letter of the bank and the cheque, memo of State Bank of India are E.C-6 to Ex.C-8. The appellant has not been able to rebut these documents. Just taking the plea of forgery is not sufficient to prove the same. The appellant has not moved any application to examine the signatures on the cheques and the complaint made to SSP placed on file, through post, does not disclose if any further action was taken. The complaint was sent by post and thereafter the appellant has not pursued the matter, which shows that this has been done only to create defence and nothing else. The appeal has been filed just to further delay the execution of the order passed by the District Forum and to deprive the respondent of his hard earned money which he paid to the appellant for going abroad. The appeal is required to be dismissed with special costs and the impugned order warrants no interference.
17. In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed with special costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) and the impugned order dated 29.09.2010 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld.
18. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
19. Remaining amount as per order of the District Forum along with costs imposed vide this order shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order.
First Appeal No.2112 of 2010 6
20. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 02.08.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
21. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member August 13, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)