Complainant Inderjit Singh through the present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter, called the Act) has prayed for issuance of necessary directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.90,000/- as compensation and damages alongwith interest @ 12% per annum on the amount till realization. Opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that the opposite party is doing the work of Air Conditioner installation alongwith mechanical work of A.C. Opposite party did the work of installation of air conditioner on 9 April of Hitachi Company alongwith his co-workers and also provided other material which is to be used regarding the installation of air conditioner and also did the labour work regarding the installation. After the installation of air conditioner, the opposite party gave demo for the same and charged for the same. The opposite party charged triple labour charges for installation of A.C. and he intentionally by doing fraud methods charged triple labour charges and with his co-labourers and even charge triple amount for the stand used for standing the compressor of A.C. and he also charged other charges for which he did not do any work. He did faith on opposite party working ability and gave him the handsome charges which is triple than general charges and they cheated him by using fraud method.  He inquired from other workers who did the same work, then it was confirmed that opposite party cheated him by charging triple charges as availing in general market and he requested the opposite party many times orally as well as telephonically, but of no use. A legal registered notice dated 11.05.2017 was served upon the opposite party but no reply has been received from his side. He suffered mental agony, harassment and physically impairment due to the negligence of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint.

3.           Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party who appeared through his counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has no cause of action; the name of opposite party is Inderpreet Singh and not Inderbeer Singh and the complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party on false and frivolous allegations and as such the same may be dismissed with heavy costs. On merits,  it was submitted that actually, complainant asked the opposite party that he wanted to purchase stand for standing the compressor A.C. and also extra wire and  opposite party told the complainant regarding genuine price of the stand and extra wire required for installation of A.C. and complainant agreed to purchase the same. Accordingly, the complainant purchased the stand and extra wire required for the purpose and opposite party charged the genuine price of the same. At that time, complainant did not raise any objection regarding the price of stand and wire. Moreover the complainant has not attached any bill etc showing or proving that the opposite party charged triple labour and triple amount for the stand etc. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1 and closed the evidence.

5.       Counsel for the opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Inderpreet Singh Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.

6.         On going through the file, it has transpired that complainant has only produced an affidavit in support of the allegations made by him against opposite party. No iota of documentary evidence is produced on the file to prove that opposite party has charged in excess or as to what amount did the opposite party charged or what material was used in repair of the A.C. No bill regarding any material used in repair, nor any receipt of amount paid as labour charges is produced on the file. And this objection is also taken by opposite party in para 3 and 5 of the written reply filed. Moreover first of all, it is the duty of complainant to prove the allegations by producing appropriate documents then the onus is on the opposite party to rebut it. In the instant case, the complainant himself has not produced sufficient evidence to prove the allegations and the complainant has failed to prove his complaint. Hence, the complaint cannot be allowed.

7.        In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

8.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to rush of work.

ANNOUNCED:                  (Shri Raj Singh)                   (Rajita Sareen)

April 09, 2019.                   Member                         Presiding Member

 MK