| Complaint Case No. CC/60/2018 | | ( Date of Filing : 10 Sep 2018 ) |
| | | | 1. Amara Biwas, S/O Baran Biswas | | Resident of Subash Chowk Main Road Malkangiri, odisha. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Ashok Mali, Grocery Shop, | | At: Vill.MV.7, Po. Tamasa, Ps/Dist. Malkangiri, Odisha. | | 2. Priya Biri, Prop. Anil Haldar, M/s Maa Manmahini Biri Factory, | | Vill. M.V. 14, P.O. Tamasa, Dist. Malkangiri Pin. 764045 | | 3. Sales Tax Officer, Sales Tax Department, | | At/P.O./P.S./Dist. Malkangiri. | | 4. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, | | Department of Revenue, Represented by the Superintendent, Office of Superintendent,Central Goods and Service Tax, Jeypore I & II Range, At : New Bank Colony,P.O. /P.S. Jeypo |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | - Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that on 28.08.2018 he purchased one bundle of Bidi containing 20 numbers of small packets for Rs. 140/- and distributed the same within his relatives in a feast, who found the difference in quantity of Bidi in each packet. While he contacted with the O.P. No. 1, who replied that the said Bidi packet is manufactured and packaged by the O.P. No. 2 and advised the complainant to contact with the O.P. No. 2. And on contact to the O.P. No. 2, the O.P.No.2 replied with filthy language, hence complainant returned from there and contacted with the O.P.No.3 but did not get any good response, thus alleging deficiency in service, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.P.No.2 to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him and also to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
- The O.P. No. 1 though received the notice from the Fora, but did not choose to appear in this case nor file his counter versions nor participated in the hearing also, inspite of repeated adjournments, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from him.
- The O.P. No. 2 appeared though his Ld. Counsel and filed his counter versions admitting the manufacture of the alleged Bidi packet, but denied the allegations of complainant contending that the complainant never met with him regarding the above dispute and without any documentary evidence, the complainant cannot be said to a consumer under him. Further it is contended that the complainant in order to come within the meaning of consumer, he should prove with documentary evidence that he had purchased the product of O.P. No. 2 for consideration. It is also contended that complainant has not made out any specific case against the O.P.No.2 to prove that the quantity of Bidi in each packet is less than 20, whereas the minimum quantity of Bidi in each packet is 20 numbers and the difference is made only during the packing system, for which the O.P.No.2 cannot be held responsible as intentional. With other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case against him.
- The O.P. No. 3 appeared in this case and filed their counter versions contenting that they have made an enquiry into the matter and submitted their report before the Forum stating that on 06.10.2018 they contacted with the O.P. No. 1 and ascertained that the complainant is not known to him and O.P. No. 1 uses the Bidi products of O.P. No. 2 for his personal purpose but not for sale. Further it is contended that while on contact with the O.P. No. 2, who replied that never the complainant comes to his factory nor he used filthy language to him. It is also contended that they do not have any mobile duty to inspect the each and every shop without any prior intimation of their higher authority and also never the complainant come to their office for lodging any complaint regarding the alleged matter. With other contentions, showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
- The O.P. No. 4 though received the notice from the Fora, which was sent through Regd. Letter vide R.L. No. RO960264874IN dated 26.09.2018, did not choose to appear in this case.
- Though the complainant filed the present case but did not filed any single document to prove his allegations inspite of repeated opportunities given to him keeping in view of natural justice. Whereas, only the O.P. No. 3 has filed certain documents in their support. Heard from the parties present and perused the case record and material documents available therein.
- In the instant case, the O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of case stating that the complainant has not filed any single document to prove his allegation and without any documentary evidence, no case can be made out against him. Whereas the inspite of repeated opportunities, the complainant could not produced any cogent evidence in support of his allegations. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 3 has contended that during enquiry, it was ascertained that the complainant is not known to both the O.P. No. 1 & 2 and the O.P. No. 3 obtained curtain documents from the O.P. No. 1. During hearing, the complainant remained absent on repeated calls, as such we lost every opportunities to come to know whether the contentions of O.P. No. 2 & 3 are correct. And the absence of complainant makes the contentions of O.P. No. 2 & 3 and documents filed by the O.P. No. 3, vital and strong and remained unchallenged.In this connection, we have fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Anuj Agarwal Vrs United India Insurance Co. Ltd, wherein it is held that “There is no illegality or jurisdictional error where an order is passed on written version and document of O.P. unchallenged by complainant.
- Further the O.P.No.2 argued that since the complainant not filed any single document to prove his allegations, as such without any documentary evidence, the present dispute cannot be sustained in the eye law. Inspite of repeated adjournments, the complainant neither participated in the hearing nor produced any cogent evidence i.e. the bill / invoice or any single paper to the effect to prove his submissions. As such we feel, the complainant, does not have locus standi to proceed with the case. Further, it is well settled law that the onus of burden of prove is lies on the complainant. We have fortified with another verdicts of Hon’ble National commission in the case between Nawal Kishore Kashyap Vrs Bihar State Housing Co-Operative Federation Ltd., and others, wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Complaint is liable to be dismissed if complainant is unable to make out even a prima facie case for consideration. Considering the above verdicts, we do not think the present case is fit case for proceeding. Hence this order.
ORDER
Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the versions of complainant. Hence the present case is dismissed for devoid of merits.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 17th day of May, 2019.
Issue free copy to the parties concerned.
| |
