BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.191/13.

Date of instt.: 09.09.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 22.12.2014.

Sadhu Ram S/o Seo Chand Caste Jat, r/o Village Badsikri, Tehsil Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

Balinder Pehowa Wala, C/o M/s. Surya Electric & Machinery Store, near Bus Stand Railway Road, Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. B.D.Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased the goods of tubewell from the shop of Op and the complainant purchased a tube (Sundka) 80 x 40 ft. worth Rs.3200/- and purchased other articles for the total sum of Rs.12,515/-.  It is alleged that the tube supplied by the Op is duplicate and inferior quality and the same is broken into at least 150 pieces.  This way, the Op is deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the Op is Ravinder Kumar inspite of Balinder Pehowa Wala.  There is no any firm in the name and style of M/s. Surya Electric and Machinery Store exists in the whole market of Kalayat; that the Op never sold such material to the complainant as he claims; that the complainant asked the Op to give him rates/quotation of the goods for apply of a bank loan; that he has never purchased these goods from the Op; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.     On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.   

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased the goods of tubewell from the shop of Op and the complainant purchased a tube (Sundka) 80x 40 ft. worth Rs.3200/- and purchased other articles for the total sum of Rs.12,515/-.  The tube supplied by the Op is duplicate and inferior quality and the same is broken into at least 150 pieces.  On careful perusal of all the record available on the file, it is crystal clear that the complainant has failed to produce any bill or documentary evidence which could prove that the complainant had purchased the tube (Sundka) 80 x 40 fit worth Rs.3200/- from the Op.  Mere allegations are not sufficient, those are necessary to be proved by cogent evidence.  So, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Op.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.22.12.2014.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.