Parties are absent on repeated call. However, in view of Sec 38(3)(c ) of C.P Act , Case record taken up to decide the complaint on merit.

Sec 38 (6) of C.P Act 2019 casts on obligation on the Dist Commission ot decide a complainant on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service Provider/Seller, irrespective of whether the  service provider /Seller adduced evidence or not , the decision of the Dist Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant . The onus thus is on the complainant making allegation. Here, in this case though the complainant alleged deficiency in service for issuing a defective bill to him by the O.P , the Complainant failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim . Neither the averment of complaint petition is supported by any affidavit of the complainant not the documents filed by the complainant are authenticated to be true, as such it can’t be taken as evidence in support of the complainant . Hence, the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged against the O.ps. Hence, complaint is dismissed against the O.ps. However, no order as to cost.