Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this case are re-capitulated as under :- 

              In a nutshell, the case of the Complaint, is that, the Complainant had made a pair of spectacles from the Opposite Party concern which was delivered to the Complainant on 14.01.2014. Before delivery of the said spectacles the Opposite Party gave two bluish papers containing features, power of lens etc. for looking on but did not provide the same or any write up regarding features of the lens of the said spectacles on demand.

               The Opposite Party did not also write anything about the lens on the Bill of the said spectacles provide to her. The Complainant also could not find out the Hallmark symbol in the lens in of the said spectacles. Thereafter the Complainant made the next one for her and the Opposite Party agreed to write the features of the lens on the back side of the Bill. Showing the same to the doctor he made some comments regarding the said lens and when the Complainant showed the same to the other shop the Complainant came to know that the branded lens was provided with the authenticity card. The Complainant asked the Opposite Party for the authenticity card on 20.01.2014 and was told that she would be informed after its arrival. After a long period the Complainant was provided a blank authenticity card on 11.02.2014. The Complainant felt doubt about the authenticity of the lens of the said spectacles and could not use the said spectacles. The Complainant repeatedly requested the Opposite Party to clear her doubt regarding the lens of the said spectacles but the Opposite Party paid no heed to it, what amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Party and caused mental agony and harassment to the Complainant for which he had asked for compensation. Hence, this case is filed for seeking adequate redressal before this Forum. 

               Resisting the Complaint, the Opposite Party filed Written Version for denying the contentions and all material allegations made by the Complainant in the Petition of Complaint and stating inter alia, that the Complainant has no cause of action to file the instant case, the case is bad for defect of parties and the case is not maintainable.

                The specific case as stated by the Opposite Party in gist, is that, the Complainant had made two spectacles from the Opposite Party but the Opposite Party never assured to provide any write up in the back side of the Bill of the same. The Opposite Party admitted that one of their personnel tried to show the hallmark symbol in the lens to the Complainant but the Complainant could not find it as the near power of her eye is 2+0.5,180 for which without spectacles the hallmark symbol is impossible to see by her.

                The Opposite Party is a reputed organization and has the right to sell the multi com lens but they are not the manufacturer of the lens. Generally the hallmark of the lens is a very small mark and any person has near power in his /her eyes cannot able to see the small engraved hallmark symbol over the lens surface by naked eyes without the spectacles, for which the Complainant could not see the hallmark symbol in her open eyes. The Opposite Party stated that when the Complainant went to another shop what they told that is not the out look of this Opposite Party concern. The Opposite Party denied committing anything during the selling of the lens/spectacles. On asking the Opposite Party has provided the authenticity card of the particular lens to the Complainant, but if the lens company did not provide the facilities of the lens or details of the lens in the said authenticity card this Opposite Party has nothing to do in this matter. Moreover the Opposite Party the authenticity card contains the name of the manufacturer company. The Opposite Party also has provided the web site of the manufacture company to the Complainant. The Opposite Party were using the old billing soft ware for which no such option to give the details of the sold lens and frames on the bill but presently the Opposite Party concern has upgraded the soft ware and already sent a new computerized bill with the details of the lens and frame to the Complainant. Furthermore, the Complainant never has been using the said disputed spectacles delivered by the Opposite Party. So, no question of deficiency of service does arise at all and the Opposite Party has denied any negligence or/ and deficiency in rendering service on his part and the Complainants are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of this case.

                                                                               Points for Determination

               1.  Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?

               2.  Was there any negligence or deficiency in service

                                      on the part of the O.Ps ?

               3.  Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?

                                                                                 Decision with Reasons

                All the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.

               The main dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Party is that whether the Opposite Party is liable for not providing the proper service to the Complainant or not.

               We have carefully considered and scrutinized the submission made before us by the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party and also critically perused all the material documents on record, but neither the Complainant herself nor any Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Complainant was present at the time of hearing argument on repeated calls.   

               On overall evaluation of the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the Opposite Party, and on critical appreciation of the case record, it is clearly evident and admitted by the Opposite Party that the Complainant had made a pair of spectacles from the Opposite Party concern which was delivered to the Complainant on 14.01.2014.

                It is revealed from the case record that the main grievances of the Complainant is that she apprehended that the lens of the said spectacles are not the genuine one for which the Opposite Party deliberately failed and/or disagree to provide the details of the lens or failed to show the hallmark symbol in the said lens.

               The record reveals that the Complainant alleged that the Opposite Party did not provide any write up regarding features of the lens of the said spectacles in the Bill or anywhere else on repeated demand.

     The Opposite Party did not also write anything about the lens on the Bill of the said spectacles provide to her. The Complainant also could not find out the Hallmark symbol in the lens in of the said spectacles. Thereafter the Complainant made the next one for her and the Opposite Party agreed to write the features of the lens on the back side of the Bill.

                On the other hand the Opposite Party denying the same stated that the Opposite Party never assured to provide any write up in the back side of the Bill of the same. The Opposite Party admitted that one of their personnel tried to show the hallmark symbol in the lens to the Complainant but the Complainant could not find it and that is not the fault of the Opposite Party.

              Manifestly the fact remains that the Complainant never alleged that she used the said spectacles and felt some vision problem or any other problem regarding such lens of the said spectacles or the Complainant also never alleged or complained that the power of such disputed lens is defective or not with the specified power prescribed by the doctor.

              Moreover, the Complainant did never produce the said disputed spectacles before the Forum for their direct verification and/or inspection. Thus the Forum could not able to verify the authenticity of the allegation made by the Complainant. Furthermore the Complainant was absent on the date of the argument to prove her own case.

             Thus, the decision of the Forum is that the Complainant miserably failed to prove her own case that the Opposite Party has failed to provide the proper service for which the Opposite Party was/is liable to be.

             Therefore, in light of the above analysis, we are inclined to hold that the Complainant has not successfully proved his case and accordingly is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for and consequently the points for determination are decided in negative.

             In short, the Complainant deserves failure.

             In the result, we proceed to pass 

                                                                                          O R D E R 

              That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.

             Parties to bear their own costs.

             Let the copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.