Delhi

East Delhi

CC/222

Ravindra Lal Srivastava - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aqua Coin Sale - Opp.Party(s)

29 May 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC No.222/13:

 

In the matter of:

 

Sh. Ravindra Lal Srivastava

52 – B, Pocket D2, DDA Flats Kondli,

MayurVihar Phase – III, Delhi – 110 096

Complainant

Vs

Aqua Coin Sale & Service Co. (Regd.)

BR Complex, 32 – B, Patparganj,

Near Una Enclave, MayurVihar Phase – I,

Delhi – 110 091

Respondent

 

Date of Admission :21/03/2013

                        Date of Order         : 22/06/2015

 

ORDER

Ms.Poonam Malhotra, Member :

 

            This complaint has been filed with the allegation that on 03/03/2013 the complainant had purchased an Aquafresh Water Purifying RO System from the respondent for Rs.6,500/- but the machine which the executives of the respondent namely Sh. Chandan and  assistant  brought to the premises of the complainant for installation was not of Aquafresh. When the complainant objected to it, the said executives of the respondent assured him that they will bring the Aquafresh machine for him.  On 05/03/2013 they brought a machine on which a number of Aquafresh stickers were stuck but they were not having the Aquafresh User Manual and Warranty Card.  On objection from the complainant they promised to deliver the User Manual and Warranty Card.  After installation of the machine a bill of Rs.7,500/- was raised as against the agreed price of Rs.6,500/-.  The complainant refused to accept the machine but the matter was compromised at Rs.7,000/- on the ground that the complainant would pay Rs.5,000/- immediately and the balance Rs.2,000/- would be paid to the respondent when the User Manual would be delivered to him.  On 09/03/2013 the same executive visited the premises of the complainant on the pretext of delivering the original Aquafresh User Manual to him but on perusal by the complainant it was found to be fake.  The complainant demanded back his Rs.5,000/- and asked the executive to take away the machine.  On the following day i.e., 10/03/2013 the complainant reminded the said executive about it but he refused to refund Rs.5,000/- and instead a demand of Rs.2,000/- was raised by the manager of the respondent.  The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost.

            Notices were issued to the respondent.  None appeared on behalf of the respondent.  Case proceeded exparte against it.

            The complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit in support of his case.

            Heard the complainant and perused the record.

            It is evident from the copy of the Invoice-cum–Receipt with ICR No.695, S.No.357 dated 05/03/3013 that the complainant had purchased a RO Ketn Model+ for Rs.7,500/- for which the complainant admits to have paid Rs.5,000/-.  It is a cardinal principle of law that one who raises an allegation has to prove it beyond doubt.  Not an iota of evidence has been filed on record by the complainant to substantiate his claim that he had ordered for an Aquafresh Water Purification RO System from the respondent but instead of that it had delivered and installed a different RO System as mentioned in the invoice placed on record.  No documentary evidence has been field on record to show that any objection /protest was raised by the complainant simultaneously at the time of receiving and installation of the machine.  In the absence of any such objection /protest at the time of receiving and installation of the machine at the premises of the complainant, he is estopped from raising it at a later stage.

Further, in the case in hand, the complainant has raised specific allegations of fraud and cheating against the respondent of supplying fake RO Machine and User Manual of the said machine to him.  The offences of fraud and cheating are triable by the court of competent jurisdiction as it involves the adjudication of questions of fact and evaluation of evidence which are out of the purview of the The Consumer Protection Act and cannot be adjudicated upon under the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  These proceedings are summary in nature which are decided on the basis of evidence filed by the parties on affidavit.  The questions of fact of fraud and cheating cannot be decided merely on the basis of an affidavit.

            In view of the above, the complaint deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.

 

            Copy of the order to be sent to both the parties as per rules.

 

 

  (Subhash Gupta)                                   (Poonam Malhotra)                                         (N.A.Zaidi)

            Member                                             Member                                           President