State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ajaipal Singh Gill vs Gurdev Singh on 7 September, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH.
1. First Appeal No.155 of 2016
Date of institution : 23.02.2016
Reserved on : 24.08.2017
Date of decision : 07.09.2017
Ajaipal Singh Gill (wrongly described as Ajaypal Singh Gill) s/o Shri
Gurbachan Singh, r/o H.No.HJ 213, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana.
.......Appellant-Opposite Parties No.2 &6
Versus
1. Gurdev Singh s/o Shri Sardara Singh, R/o Village Kanauran,
Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
........Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Pioneer Flori Tech. Pvt. Ltd., House No.3154, Sector 71,
District SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its Director Gurtejinder
Singh Sidhu s/o Gurdev Singh Sidhu r/o House No.3154,
Sector 71, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Shri Gurdev Singh
Sidhu s/o Shri Ajit Singh Sidhu, r/o House No.3154, Sector 71,
District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
3. Gurtejinder Singh Sidhu s/o Gurdev Singh Sidhu, r/o House
No.3154, Sector 71, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
4. Shri Gurdev Singh Sidhu s/o Shri Ajit Singh Sidhu, r/o House
No.3154, Sector 71, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
5. M/s City Garden Centre and Nursery, H/o Verka Milk Plant,
SAS Nagar, Mohali through its owner Shri Gurdev Singh Sidhu
s/o Shri Ajit Singh Sidhu, r/o House No.3154, Sector 71,
District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
First Appeal No.155 of 2016 2
6. Shri Gurdev Singh Sidhu s/o Shri Ajit Singh Sidhu, r/o House
No.3154, Sector 71, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) owner of M/s
City Garden Centre and Nursery, H/o Verka Milk Plant, SAS
Nagar, Mohali.
........Respondent Nos.2 to 6/Opposite Parties Nos.1, 4, 3, 5 & 7
2. First Appeal No.162 of 2016
Date of institution : 24.02.2016
Reserved on : 24.08.2017
Date of decision : .09.2017
1. Pioneer Flori Tech. Pvt. Ltd., House No.3154, Sector 71,
District SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its Director Shri Ajaypal
Singh Gill s/o Shri Gurbachan Singh, resident of House No.HJ
213, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana, Shri Gurdev Singh Sidhu son of
Shri Ajit Singh Sidhu, resident of # 3154, Sector 71, District
SAS Nagar, Mohali, Shri Gurtejinder Singh Sidhu s/o Gurdev
Singh Sidhu r/o House No.3154, Sector 71, District SAS Nagar
(Mohali).
Now through Gurtejinder Singh Sidhu s/o Gurdev Singh Sidhu
r/o House No.3154, Sector 71, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
2. M/s City Garden Centre and Nursery, H/o Verka Milk Plant,
SAS Nagar, Mohali through its owner Shri Ajaypal Singh Gill
s/o Shri Gurbachan Singh, resident of House No.HJ 213, BRS
Nagar, Ludhiana, Shri Gurdev Singh Sidhu son of Shri Ajit
Singh Sidhu, r/o House No.3154, Sector 71, District SAS
Nagar (Mohali).
First Appeal No.155 of 2016 3
Now through its Sole Proprietor Gurtejinder Singh Sidhu son of
Shri Gurdev Singh Sidhu, resident of House No.3154, Sector
71, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
3. Gurtejinder Singh Sidhu s/o Gurdev Singh Sidhu r/o House
No.3154, Sector 71, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
......Appellants-Opposite Parties Nos.1, 5 & 4
Versus
1. Gurdev Singh son of Shri Sardara Singh, resident of Village
Kanauran, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
........Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Ajaypal Singh Gill s/o Shri Gurbachan Singh, resident of House
No.HJ 213, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana, Director, Pioneer Flori
Tech. Pvt. Ltd.
3. M/s City Garden Centre and Nursery H/o Verka Milk Plant,
SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its owners Shri Ajaypal Singh Gill
s/o Shri Gurbachan Singh, resident of House No.HJ 213, BRS
Nagar, Ludhiana, Shri Gurdev Singh Sidhu son of Shri Ajit
Singh Sidhu, resident of # 3154, Sector 71, District SAS Nagar,
Mohali.
4. Gurdev Singh Sidhu son of Shri Ajit Singh Sidhu, resident of
H.No.3154, Sector 71, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Director,
Pioneer Flori Tech. Pvt. Ltd.
5. Ajaypal Singh Gill s/o Shri Gurbachan Singh, resident of House
No.HJ 213, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana, Co-owner of M/s City
Garden Centre and Nursery, H/o Verka Milk Plant, SAS Nagar,
Mohali (now not at Verka Milk Plant, Mohali).
First Appeal No.155 of 2016 4
6. Gurdev Singh Sidhu son of Shri Ajit Singh Sidhu, resident of
H.No.3154, Sector 71, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), co-owner
of M/s City Garden Centre and Nursery, H/o Verka Milk Plant,
SAS Nagar, Mohali (Now not at Verka Milk Plant, Mohali).
........Respondents Nos.2 to 6/OPs Nos.2, 5, 3, 6 & 7
First Appeals against the order dated
5.1.2016 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar
(Mohali).
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri S.S. Salar, Advocate.
For respondent No.1 : Shri H.S. Gill, Advocate.
For respondent No.2, 3&5: Shri S.A. Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.4 &6 : Shri V.K. Sharma, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT:
This order will dispose of both the above referred First Appeals i.e. FA No.155 of 2016 and FA No.162 of 2016 as the same arise from the common order dated 5.1.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint No.126 of 2015 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (in short, "District Forum"), whereby the complaint filed by Gurdev Singh, respondent No.1/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been allowed against opposite parties Nos.1 and 5 through its Director Shri Ajaypal Singh Gill, OP No.2/OP No.6 with the following directions:-
(a) to refund to the complainant the amount of ₹8,45,000/-
(₹Eight Lakhs Forty Five Thousands only) along with First Appeal No.155 of 2016 5 interest @ 12% per annum from the date of receipt i.e. 7.8.2013 till actual payment; and
(b) to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of ₹25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
First Appeal No.155 of 2016 has been preferred by Ajaipal Singh Gill, Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 6 and First Appeal No.162 of 2016 has been filed by appellants/Opposite Parties Nos.1, 5 and 4 for setting aside the impugned order dated 5.1.2016. Facts are being taken from First Appeal No.155 of 2016.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum. Facts of the complaint:
3. Brief facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeals are to the effect that Gurdev Singh, respondent No.1/complainant approached the opposite parties for constructing/preparing poly house in the area of 4000 square meters in his agricultural land at Village Kanuran, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. An agreement dated 7.8.2013 was executed between the complainant and opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2, who signed it on behalf of Directors of opposite party No.1 being the first party and received a sum of ₹8,40,000/- in cash and ₹5,000/- through cheque No.000754 dated 7.8.2013 in favour of M/s City Garden Centre and Nursery-opposite party No.5 whose Director is also opposite parties Nos.2 and 6. In fact it was one and the same person but he has been impleaded separately; being Director of M/s City Garden First Appeal No.155 of 2016 6 Centre and Nursery. In fact, opposite parties Nos.1 and 5 i.e. Pioneer Flori Tech. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s City Garden Centre and Nursery have been floated by Ajaipal Singh Gill and Gurdev Singh Sidhu and are Directors of both the Companies. However, the third Director; named, in opposite party No.1-Company is Gurtejinder Singh Sidhu, who is son of opposite party No.3 Gurdev Singh Sidhu. The payment receipt dated 7.8.2013 annexed with the Agreement has also been signed by Gurtejinder Singh Sidhu, opposite party No.4, on behalf of opposite party No.1-Company. As per the terms of the Agreement, poly house was to be constructed by second party at the rate of ₹750/- per square meter according to the NHM guidelines for a total consideration of ₹30.00 lakhs. M/s City Garden Centre and Nursery was to provide consultancy services for plantation and for taking care of the plants and was to charge ₹10,000/- per month for the services. In this manner, opposite parties Nos.1 and 5, whose two Directors are common and only additional Director in opposite party No.1-Company is Gurtejinder Singh Sidhu. The opposite parties had agreed to complete the work within 15 days from the date of receipt of first payment/instalment, which they received on 7.8.2013. The remaining payment of ₹21,60,000/- was to be made after completion of work. However, after receiving ₹8,40,000/- and ₹5,000/- from the complainant, the opposite parties failed to perform their part of the Agreement and to comply with the terms and conditions thereof for setting up the poly house and plantation etc. for which they received part payment. Having failed to do so the complainant sent legal notice dated First Appeal No.155 of 2016 7 5.6.2014 through registered post, which was replied vaguely. Failing to get the services of the opposite parties, the complainant approached the District Forum.
Defence of the opposite parties:
4. Upon notice the opposite parties appeared and filed a joint written statement pleading therein that the Agreement dated 7.8.2013 does not bear the signatures of any of the opposite parties and the signatures are forged and fabricated. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The complainant has forged two receipts of payments. The alleged agreement was written on 7.8.2013 and it was got notarized from Notary Public, Mohali on 4.3.2015, which clearly showed that it is unregistered document. On merits it was pleaded that opposite party No.4 is the only proprietor of M/s City Garden Centre and opposite parties Nos.2 and 3 have nothing to do with opposite party No.4. The complainant never approached the opposite parties to install poly house. The signatures on the agreement are also denied. The reply was appropriately given by the opposite parties to the legal notice. Denying any deficiency in service on their part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
Finding of the District Forum:
5. The parties produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint in the above terms, vide impugned order. Hence, these appeals.First Appeal No.155 of 2016 8
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
Contentions of the Parties:
7. Learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals took common stand that no agreement was executed between the complainant and the opposite parties on 7.8.2013, which is proved on record as Ex.C-2. It was vehemently argued that Ajaipal Singh Gill, appellant, denied specifically that he is not even a Partner/Director of Pioneer Flori Tech. Pvt. Ltd. opposite party No.1-
Company and that everything has been done fraudulently. The matter is already under investigation in a police complaint filed inter- se between the parties. It was further argued that FIR No.107 dated 24.6.2017 has been registered at the instance of appellant-Ajaipal Singh against the other Director; namely, Gurtejinder Singh and a copy of the same has been placed on the record of this appeal as Annexure A-6. The complaint has been wrongly and illegally allowed by the District Forum, vide impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, it was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the FIR and the other criminal proceedings had no relevancy so far as the complainant is concerned. The opposite parties have floated two Companies and the persons who are impleaded by name are the respective Directors of the Companies. Opposite party No.1 was to install the poly house and opposite party No.5 was to provide consultancy services and plantation and further maintenance on monthly charges First Appeal No.155 of 2016 9 basis. It was further argued that the complainant has proved on record the Agreement dated 7.8.2013 in original whereby the payments have been made. The payment of ₹5,000/- has been made through cheque and the payment of ₹8,40,000/- was given in cash which has been duly acknowledged and signed by the appellant Ajaipal Singh and other opposite parties. It was further argued that even with the bare eye the signatures of Ajaipal Singh are clearly comparable with the admitted signatures on the affidavit tendered before this Commission as well as before the District Forum. However, the opposite parties have not led any cogent evidence to rebut the same. There is no merit in both the appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. Consideration of Contentions:
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. So far as the contention of the appellants, who are opposite parties, that the FIR has been registered which is on the record as Annexure A-6 and the matter is under investigation with regard to the fraud allegedly played upon Ajaipal Singh by Gurdev Singh Sidhu and his son Gurtejinder Singh Sidhu, opposite parties, is concerned, we have perused the FIR. It has no relationship so far as Gurdev Singh, complainant, is concerned. This is a inter se dispute between the Directors and Partners in the Firms/Private Companies. It is proved on record that they have entered into the Agreement dated 7.8.2013 with the complainant and the complainant had paid ₹8,45,000/- for setting up the poly house but at the initial stage the First Appeal No.155 of 2016 10 opposite parties started fighting amongst themselves and raised the objections. We are of the view that this will not affect the rights of the complainant in any way and the complaint is maintainable and the complainant cannot be relegated to avail other remedy.
11. Once the Agreement dated 7.8.2013, Ex.C-2, has been proved which bears the signatures of Ajaipal Singh Gill, appellant on behalf of opposite parties Nos.1 and 5, then both the Companies and their Directors are personally liable for the same. The amounts may have been received by one of the person but it is on behalf of the Company. The original Agreement bears the signatures of Ajaipal Singh Gill and the receipt also bear the signatures of opposite party No.4 Gurtejinder Singh Sidhu. Certainly the opposite parties have failed to setup the poly house in the land of the complainant as agreed between them. Resultantly the opposite parties failed to provide the services hired by the complainant, which certainly amounts to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice by them and as such, the complaint has rightly been allowed by the District Forum.
12. Though the complaint has been allowed against opposite parties Nos.1 and 5 only but opposite parties Nos.2, 3 and 4 i.e. Ajaipal Singh Gill, Gurdev Singh Sidhu and Gurtejinder Singh Sidhu are the Directors as is clear from the document i.e. Articles of Association of Pioneer Flouri Tech Private Limited, shown to this Commission during the course of arguments and a photocopy of the same has been placed on record as Mark-X. A perusal of the same reveals that the Articles of Association is dated 18.11.2005 and all First Appeal No.155 of 2016 11 the above named persons are the subscribers and put their signatures on the same in the presence of witnesses. Opposite parties Nos.2 and 3 are also Partners of opposite party No.5- Company though for that reason their names have been arrayed twice in the array of opposite parties; being two different legal entities. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that opposite parties Nos.2 and 3 are also equally liable firstly being the Directors of opposite party No.1 and thereafter except Gurtejinder Singh, being the Partners/Directors of opposite party No.5. Resultantly, all the opposite parties are deficient in service and are liable jointly and severally. So far as the findings of the District Forum with regard to the issuance of directions at (a) and
(b) is concerned, the same have rightly been recorded.
13. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in both the above appeals and the same are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. The appellant had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal i.e. FA No.155 of 2016. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above said amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard.
15. Similarly the appellants had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal i.e. FA No.162 of 2016. This amount, First Appeal No.155 of 2016 12 along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above said amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard.
16. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER September 07, 2017 Bansal