BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 31 of 2016
Date of Institution : 29.01.2016.
Date of Decision : 23.11.2016.
Sanjay, aged 42 years, son of Shri Balwant Rai, resident of village Shahpur Begu, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
B.M. General Store, Geeta Bhawan Street, Sirsa, through its proprietor.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. J.B.L. Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. N.K. Daroliya, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that on 28.8.2015, complainant purchased two study boards from opposite party for a sum of Rs.1,000/- i.e. for Rs.500/- each and asked for packing these boards. The op told that it will take 15-20 minutes for packing the same and complainant asked him that he has other work in the market and will collect these boards from op. The complainant then went to market and returned after half an hour and then op supplied two study boards in packing to him. When the complainant opened the packing of these boards at his residence, he was stunned to see that the corners of the study boards were broken. He immediately rushed to the shop of op and showed him the broken corners of boards and requested for replacement of the same but op flatly refused for the same. The complainant lodged a protest about such conduct of op but the op misbehaved and insulted the complainant and kept both the boards with him and stated that he can do whatever he wants. At that time, few other customers were also present there and complainant felt himself insulted and humiliated with such act, conduct and behavior of the op. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon op on 23.9.2015, but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement, totally denying the case of the complainant as false and concocted story. It is averred that complainant had not purchased alleged study boards from the answering opposite party. It is further submitted that as the complainant leveled allegations regarding manufacturing defect in the study boards whereas the complainant has not arrayed the manufacturing company as a party to the complaint, so the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Satish Kumar Ex.C2, legal notice Ex.C3 and postal receipt Ex.C4. On the other hand, opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex,R1.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. In view of specific and categorical stand of the opposite party that complainant had not purchased any study board from him, the complainant has failed to produce any bill or receipt issued by opposite party in lieu of the amount received by him for sale of alleged study boards to the complainant. So the complainant has failed to prove that how he is consumer of the opposite party and therefore, has failed to fulfill the basic requirement of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, very case of the complainant is baseless and without any foundation and as such the complaint is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 23.11.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa
