| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM CACHAR :: SILCHAR Con. Case No. 26 of 2017 Shri Gajindra Singh S/O Late Virinder Singh, of Mela Road, Malugram P.O. & P.S – Silchar -788002 Dist. Cachar, ………………………………………………. Complainant. -V/S- 1. Guahati Industrial Spares A.T. Road, Guahati Assam – 781001 ………………………………………………… Opp. Party Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Sri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Appeared: - Mr. Joydeep Biswas, Advocate, for the complainant. Mr. Mahavir Prasad Baid, Advocate for the O.P. Date of Evidence 14-03-2018 Date of written argument 23-05-2018 Date of oral argument 12-12-2018 Date of judgment 27-12-2018 JUDGMENT AND ORDER Sri Bishnu Debnath, - The complaint brought against a Proprietary Firm, Name and Style - Gauhati Industrial Spaces (referred as O.P) for award of Rs. 2,48,624/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Four) only as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- Brief facts:-
The complainant Sri Gajindra Singh is registered owner of JCB bearing Regd. No. MZ0IC-2094.(referred as JCB) For a repairing the said JCB, placed an order for some engine parts on 06-03-2017 to the O.P and paid price of the parts of Rs. 69,617/- by cheque No. 050761 dated 02-03-2017 drawn on HDFC Bank. When he received the consignment found the item sent were not the item ordered for. Thus, made a complaint, where upon O.P again sent some other items on 21-04-2017. The item sent in second time also did not in conformity with the order. Hence, the complainant again and again requested the O.P to change the parts and sent the parts which he sought for but the O.P most illegally remain unresponsive. - Finding no alternative, the complainant purchased parts on 03-05-2017 from Johnson Power Sales and Services, Johnson Estate, Peter’s Street, E-1 Khatla, Aizawl, Mizoram and repaired the JCB.
- Thereafter, the complainant requested the O.P to take back the parts and refund the money but the O.P did not respond to the request. Hence, this case is brought to get beck cost of the parts of Rs. 38,624/- and compensation as well as cost of the proceeding.
- The O.P in his W/S admitted the fact that he received an order from the complainant and accordingly sent consignment of parts and subsequently replaced the consignment with new consignment but the complainant did neither return the second consignment nor inform the O.P regarding mismatch of items. Rather, on false statement lodged the complainant.
- During hearing the complainant submitted his deposition and exhibited some documents. The O.P also submitted deposition of its Proprietor Sri Kausar Dodiya. After closing evidence the O.P side’s counsel submitted written argument.
- I have heard oral argument of both sides’ counsels and perused evidence on record including written argument of the Ld. Counsels of the O.P. In this case it is admitted fact that the O.P send some spares parts on consignment to the complainant but the said consignment has not been returned by the complainant. However, the plea of the complainant is that the spares parts received from the O.P in second time were not in conformity with his order. But the O.P did not agree and took a deference plea that if the consignment were not in conformity with the order of the complainant, then why the complainant did not return the said consignment.
- In this case after going through the evidence on record it is evident that the complainant deposed on oath that he requested time and again to the O.P to change the parts but O.P kept in mum. The O.P did not agree with the said fact. So, it is the burden of the complainant to establish the aforesaid alleged fact that he requested the O.P to change the parts and attempted to return the parts with the cost of the O.P. But nothing found from the evidence on record to say that the complainant attempted to return the spares parts to the O.P and demanded for refund of money. His mere statement on oath is not sufficient to establish the said fact inasmuch as the O.P denied it. It is the burden of the complainant to establish his above statement with the help of other reliable evidence either documentary or otherwise. If the complainant really attempted to return the spares parts, then it is his duty to explain as why the parts were not returned to the O.P.
- Moreover, it is evident from the complaint that the complainant placed order for spares parts and paid Rs. 69,617/- by cheque No.050761 dated 02-03-2017 of HDFC Bank, but made prayer for refund of Rs.38,624/-(Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Four) only. Why less amount is claimed is not clear from the evidence on record. Anyhow, a presumption may be drawn that out of the consignment of spares parts, the complainant used some parts for repairing the JCB and some parts remain unused for not compatible with the JCB, and for that reason he is claiming refund of the price of those parts which are remain without use for JCB. But in this case, I do not find any list of the spares parts for which refund is claiming.
- Therefore, in my considered view the complaint is not established. Thus, I do not find any disservice on the part of the O.P. Accordingly, in this case the complainant is not entitled any relief from this District Forum. Thus, this case is dismissed on contest without any cost.
- Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties. Given under my hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 27th day of December,2018
| |
