IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 17-08-2010 Case No. FA-08/73 (Arising from the order dated 28-12-2007 passed in Case No. 1081/2006 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum (North) Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi). MOHD. YUSUF - APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT S/O shri Sarwat Ali, R/O C-19, Jamia Staff Quarters, Tikona Park, Okhla, New Delhi At present Flat No. 175, Sector-PI-01, Gulmohar State, Greater Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. Versus 1. SHRI SALMAN @ BABBU BHAI C/O Shri Jitender Bharti, C- 360-361, Nehru Vihar, P.S. Timarpur, Delhi -54 2. MEHBOOB, PROPRIETOR OF M/S BAREILLY FURNITURE HOUSE, Sarai Hakim, Aligarh, U.P. - RESPONDENTS CORAM : JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI - President SHRI M.L. SAHNI - Member 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI (ORAL) ORDER
1. According
to the complainant, OP No.1 is his family friend while OP No.2
is the friend of OP No.1, who is engaged in the business of furniture at Aligarh. The complainant had to purchase some
furniture for the marriage of his daughter and for that OP No.1 took OP No.2, to the
complainant and the complainant gave an order to OP No.2 for supply of a sofa
set, 2 gaddas and paid Rs. Eleven Thousand to OP No.2. His grouse is that the sofa set was found damaged
and one of the two gaddas, was of inferior quality when they reached him which lowered
down his prestige before in-laws of his daughter. The complainant informed OP No.2 about it and
requested to replace the same or to refund his amount which OP No.2 refused and
the complainant, therefore, filed a complaint for refund of Rs. 11,000/-
besides compensation of Rs. One lakh.
2. OP No.1 and OP No.2 filed separate written
statements. OP No.1 in its written statement did not deny
the version of the complainant while OP No.2 denied the claim of the
complainant in toto and alleged that he never sold the gaddas and sofa set or
any article to the complainant, and the complainant had filed the complaint to
harass him in collusion of OP No.1.
3. The District Forum on consideration of evidence
of both the parties held that the Cash Memo and the GR filed in evidence by the
complainant do not establish any transaction having been taken place between OP
No.2 and the complainant and dismissed the complaint.
4. That is what brings the
complainant/appellant in appeal before this Commission.
5. We have heard Shri Anurag Pratap, Counsel
for the appellant and the counsel for respondent.
6. What we find in this case is that the basic
feature of buyer and seller is missing.
In order to establish this relationship the complainant filed a Cash
Memo and the GR in which the name of the complainant is missing. The District Consumer Forum was, therefore, right
while holding that these documents are, of no help to establish relationship of
purchaser and seller between the complainant and OP No.2. As regards the contention of the counsel for
appellant that OP No.1 admitted in his written statement the transaction in question
is of no avail to the appellant to prove the factum of contract between the
complainant and OP No.2, as being of no binding effect on OP No.2. The circumstances and the evidence available
on the record were thus rightly appreciated by the District Consumer Forum and
the findings of the Trial Forum call for no interference.
7. Appeal dismissed.
8. Bank
Guarantee/FDR, if any, be returned to the appellant after completion of due
formalities.
9. A copy of this order as per the statutory
requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file
be consigned to Record Room.
10. Announced
on 17th August 2010.
(JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI)
PRESIDENT
(M.L. SAHNI)
MEMBER
AV