Charan Singh son of S.Lal Singh, resident of Ariya Smaj Chowk, Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala.<br /> Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> Ashok Enterprises, through it Proprietor Sh.Sanjiv Kumar, Ariya Smaj Chowk, Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala.<br /> Opposite party.<br /> Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> Quoram : Sh.A.K. Sharma President.<br /> Sh.Surinder Mittal, Member.<br /> Present : None for the complainant.<br /> Sh.Vikas Uppal counsel for opposite party.<br /> JUDGMENT (SH.A.K. SHARMA PRESIDENT.)<br /> Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by the complainant Charan Singh against opposite party i.e. Ashok Enterprises through its Proprietor Sanjiv Kumar seeking direction against him to give new DVD player of the same quality in place of defective one or in alternative to refund the price amounting to Rs.5000/- alongwith interest and also monetary compensation for deficiency in service .<br /> 2. In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that complainant purchased DVD player having chassis No.07100ME12091698 from the opposite party on 13/10/2006 on payment of price of Rs.5000/-. Opposite party assured that DVD player make Onida is of good quality with smooth functioning with warranty period of one year valid upto 13/10/2007. It is further alleged that DVD player purchased from the opposite party turned out to be defective quality as it was not properly working. He brought to the notice of opposite party about defects and handed over the DVD player to the opposite party for its repair. It is further alleged that opposite party has neither returned the DVD player after removing defects nor replaced the same despite his repeated requests and visits to his shop. Rather opposite party has made lame excuse that said DVD player has been sent to the company for rectification of the defects and that it will be returned after removing defects. He thus procrastinated in returning DVD player nor even refund price of it and as such there i s clear cut deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party for which he is not only entitled to price of DVD player i.e. Rs.5000/- but also monetary compensation.<br /> 3. Opposite party appeared and controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim. Preliminary objection has been raised that complaint is not maintainable as the same has been filed with ulterior motive to harass the opposite party on false allegation.. On merits factum of purchase of DVD player on 13.10.2006 having chassis No. 07100ME12091698 from the opposite party is not disputed but it is denied that same was purchased for the amount of Rs.5000/- but the same was purchased for the price of Rs.2700/-. It is also denied that DVD was not working properly and it started giving problem. It is further denied that complainant has ever brought to the notice of dealer about allege defects of the DVD player for getting repaired. Therefore, there is no question of any replacement or repairing the DVD when the same was not handed over to the opposite party nor it was ever said by the opposite party that said DVD has been sent to the Company for rectification. As a matter of fact complainant has employed pressure tactics to force him to depose falsely in civil litigation in case of agreement of sale which was entered by the complainant with one Baldev Singh in respect of sale of his land and in which he was attesting witness. He declined to depose falsely as complainant resile from the agreement. Even complaint filed by the complainant with the Police in Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi was also filed as concocted one and no action was taken against it. Therefore, there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.<br /> 4. Complainant filed only one affidavit Ex.C1 but failed to produce any other evidence nor appeared on 26/3/2008 without any justification and as such his evidence was closed by order.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite party produced in evidence affidavits and documents Ex.R1 to R9.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the opposite party and also gone through the documents on the record. No doubt, complainant has reiterated his allegations in his affidvit Ex.C1 about purchase of DVD player make Onida from the opposite party on payment of price of Rs.5000/- and later on alleged defects in the DVD player brought to the notice of opposite party. During the course of proceedings, he was asked to produce bill regarding purchase of DVD player on 13/10/2006 on payment of price of Rs.5000/- at the behest of opposite party to which he replied on 14/2/08 that only receipt was issued and not the bill which was submitted by the complainant. Opposite party has refuted the allegation of payment of Rs.5000/- as price of the DVD player and produced the bill Ex.R2 dated 13/10/2006 issued to the complainant for the amount of Rs.2700/-. He has also produced customer complaint register Ex.R3 in which name of Charan Singh as customer of DVD player regarding any complaint of defects in the DVD player does not figure at all. He has not produced any receipt but only a warranty card and photocopy of the warranty card in which amount of Rs.5000/- appears to have been inserted with some ulterior motive. Therefore, malafide intention of the complainant is well nigh perceptible when he even cited the exorbitant price of Rs.5000/- to lay his false claim on the purported theory of defective DVD player. He has not produced any receipt of handing over DVD player to the opposite party for rectification of its defects for the reasons best known to him. On the other hand opposite party has alleged that complainant is chronic complainant and is in the habit of filing false complaints as is evident from Ex.R5, R6 and R7. One Amarjit Singh has also filed affidavit Ex.R4 in support of defence plea of the opposite party that complainant was in the habit of blackmailing with ulterior motive and design as the present one was filed on false allegation and as za pressure tacties exerted upon the opposite party in the civil litigation.. The conduct of the complainant indulging in false allegations in various complaints and to counter the defence plea reinforces allegation of the opposite party that present complaint has been filed falsely for harassment.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, finding no merit in this complaint, same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.2000/- payable by the complainant to the opposite party within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 29.4.2008 Member President.