DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> <br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No. 24 of 17.01.2008<br /> <br /> Decided on : 17-03-2008 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Prince Pal S/o Girdhari Lal, R/o Maur Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Deemark Health Care, 173 Ajit Complex, IInd Floor, Shiva Market, Pitampura, Delhi, through its Managing Director/Partner/Proprietor/Authorised person.<br /> <br /> <br /> ...Opposite party<br /> <br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> <br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> <br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> <br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> <br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh.Shah Bhart Singh, Advocate.<br /> <br /> For the Opposite parties : Exparte. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Opposite party was advertising through TV channels regarding Rudraksh and Nau Rattan Anguthi by saying that Rudraksh sold by it saves the life of the person who wears it and protects him from evils. Feeling convinced, complainant placed an order with the opposite party through mobile No. 93564-89888 for supply of one Rudrakash worth Rs. 3500/-. His order was further sent to Telly Shop of the opposite party on 2.7.07. Rudrakash was supplied to him at Maur Mandi, District Bathinda. When packing was opened and Rudrakash was worn by him it was found that Rudrakash and Nau Rattan Anguthi were not original. They were duplicate. He got served legal notice dated 25.9.07 upon the opposite party. On its basis, opposite party supplied another one Mukhi Rudrakash and that was also duplicate. His son Jental wore Rudrakash and Nau Rattan Anguthi was worn by him (complainant) as per advice of the opposite party. Instead of protecting complainant and his son from bad elements/evil souls, they started facing problems. His son had met with an accident. He started suffering from various ailments. He had to remain in the hospital for long period. Lacs of Rupees have been spent for his treatment. This was due to the adverse affect of Rudrakash and Nau Rattan Anguthi as they were not original. His entire family was under mental tension and pressure. His son has to remain under treatment of Bharat Brain Hospital, Bathinda. He alleges that he has been duped. In these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to refund him the price of the Rudarkash; pay him Rs. 1.00 Lac as damages and Rs. 50,000/- incurred by him for treatment besides cost of the complaint.<br /> <br /> Registered A.D. notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party on 1.2.08. Neither registered letter nor A.D. was received back till 4.3.08. No-one on behalf of the opposite party put in appearance although 30 days had elapsed. Accordingly, opposite party No. 1 has been proceeded against exparte.<br /> <br /> Complainant in support of his averments contained in the complaint tendered his affidavit (Ex. C-8) Reporting Form of Omega Diagnostic Centre (Ex. C-1), Laboratory report (Ex. C-2), Prescription slip of Bharat Brain Hospital (Ex. C-3), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-4), Postal receipt (Ex. C-5), photograph of Rudraksh and envelop (Ex. C-6) and affidavit of Sh. Kishori Lal (Ex. C-7) in exparte evidence.<br /> <br /> We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record.<br /> <br /> Onus to prove the averments in the complaint is upon the complainant. For that he is relying upon his own affidavit Ex. C-8 and one of Sh. Kishori Lal. Kishori Lal claims that he is an expert in the examination of various diamonds, gold items, Rudrakash and other similar products. Rudrakash, Anguthi, Shiv ling and other items produced before him by the complainant were examined by him and that they were duplicate. This affidavit of Sh. Kishori Lal is not worth placing credence. His affidavit cannot be treated as an expert evidence. He has not disclosed his qualification and experience. He does not state how many Rudrakashes and Anguthies have been previously examined by him. He has not made it clear which are the symptoms of genuine Rudrakash. His opinion that products are duplicate without any basis thereof cannot be accepted particularly when there is no evidence about his qualification, experience and training if any obtained by him. Bald affidavit of the complainant cannot be given any weight as it is a self serving one. Complainant alleges that he starting facing problems after wearing Rudrakash and that his son had met with an accident. Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-3 are CT Scan report, Laboratory and prescription slip respectively pertaining to his son Jentel. Allegation of the complainant regarding the accident of his son and problems experienced by him after he wore Rudrakash are whimsical and suppositional. There is no solid evidence that if one wears duplicate Rudrakash, he and his family members would experience problems. A person and his family members may face such like problems even if they do not wear Rudrakash at all. Complainant has voluntarily purchased the Rudrakash and Nau Rattan Anguthi. He has failed to prove their duplicacy. Hence, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is established. Complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed.<br /> <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and the file be <br /> <br /> <br /> consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Pronounced :<br /> <br /> 17-03-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />