Delhi

North East

CC/128/2024

Rakesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Durga Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

02 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 128/24

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Rakesh S/o Sh. Johari Lal R/o A 4/410 Nand Nagri, North East Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
	Shri Durga Enterprises A 1, Nathu Colony Chowk, 100 ft. Road, Pillar No. 5, Delhi-110093	Opposite Party

 

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

1. The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Party i.e. Shri Durga Enterprises. The case of the Complainant is that on 29.07.22 the Complainant purchased a battery rickshaw vide registration no. DL 13ER 3498 chassis no. M8VAEADL21K001208 for a sum of Rs. 94,000/- for which subsidy of Rs. 30,000/- is decided and Opposite Party gave assurance that the amount of subsidy will be credited in his account. Thereafter Complainant visited office of Opposite Party several times regarding amount of subsidy and Opposite Party gave false assurance that the work is under process. It is stated that after enquiry Complainant and his wife visited Rajpura Road Authority and came to know that his subsidy got transferred into some other person account whose name is also Rakesh. The Complainant had also gave a request letter to authority but all in vain. Thereafter Complainant visited office of Opposite Party several times then the Opposite Party threatened the Complainant. On 05.03.24 Complainant also called 112 and police gypsy came but they said that they were unable to help. The Complainant visited Opposite Party several times regarding his subsidy but Opposite Party did not pays any heed to the request of Complainant.  
2. We have heard the Complainant and we have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he is entitled for Government subsidy of Rs. 30,000/- for purchase of E-Rickshaw and concerned authority transferred the subsidy amount to some other person account whose name is also Rakesh. The Complainant failed to submit any document in support of his contention which shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.
3. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines, Kolkata and Another v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma and Others (2020) 9SCC 424) held that the initial onus or burden to justify, verify and authenticate the fact that there is a deficiency of service committed by a party is on the Complainant.
4. In the present complaint, the Complainant is failed to prove his case. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.  
5. Order announced on.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)          Member

(Adarsh Nain)      Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma)             President