ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. Complainant for direction to pay Rs.29,000/- as cost of the power unit and compensation cost etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant has started a self employed venture at Clappana, Oachira under the name and style as Vinayaka Cable Vision, for his lively hood and also for maintaining his family. The opp.party herein is a businessman, engaged in the distribution and sale of Electronic and allied goods having his showroom/shop at first floor, Geevee Complex, Andamukkam, Kollam under the name and style as FECON ELECTRONICS. And the opp.party is the proprietor of the aforesaid concern. The opp.party has approached the complainant on several occasions for purchasing some electronic items viz. Servo Inverter and Injector [Power Unit]. The opp.party has supplied the complainant the aforesaid power unit on credit basis, as agreed previously and as such the complainant has given a cheque to the opp.party covering the agreed sale amount of Rs.29,000/- bearing No.347161, dt. 24.12.2006, drawn on the Punjab National Bank, Branch Office Oachira, Kollam. Even though the power unit has been installed in the complainants shop premises by the opp.party the said Electronic unit indicated mal-functioning. Even after repairing the defective unit, the complainant had noticed that the said unit is mal functioning again and as such the complainant had refused to take accept the power unit from the premises of the opp.party and insisted the opp.party to supply a fresh and good quality power unit. The opp.party has told the complainant to the effect that he requires two months time for the supply and installation of a New Power unit at the complainants shop premises. Even after the expiry of the said two months time the opp.party has till date not discharged his obligation towards the complainant. There is deficiency of service also besides latches and omission from the part of the opp.party. Hence the complaint. Opp.party filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. As there is no consumer dispute exist between the complainant and the opp.party, this petition is not maintainable. The opp.party is not a businessman. The opp.party is only a technician, who repairs electronic items. The opp.party does not have any business on electronic and allied goods. The opp.party carries business on maintenance and repairs of electronic items. The complainant approached the opp.party for repairing electronic goods. During 2005 the complainant approached the opp.party and enquired the market prices of certain electronic items. The opp.party casually scribbled market prices of various electronic goods and its fitting charges of the different companies. The complainant took the scribbled papers with a view to bargain with the dealers at Ernakulam. Now the opp.party believes that one of such scribbled papers is produced in this case The product seen mentioned in the complaint is a product having guarantee. It has guarantee papers, sale notes, bills etc. one cannot sell such a product casually as stated in the complaint that itself shows the complainant’s story is a false one. The complainant borrowed Rs.29,000/- from the opp.party and for discharging the liability the complainant drawn and issued cheque No.347161 dt. 24.12.06 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Oachira Branch. The complainant send the cheque for collection and it was dishonoured. The matter of dishonouring the cheque was intimated to the complainant by notice on 27.2.2007. Even after the notice the complainant had not cleared the li-ability. Therefore the opp.party filed S.T.No.338/2007 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam and it is still pending. The opp.party honestly believes that this complaint is filed as a realization. No power unit was entrusted with the opp.party for repairing. The opp.party is neither the manufacturer or seller of any power unit and the opp. party is under no liability to supply a power unit to the complainant. The allegation that though the complainant had made repeated requests and demands to the opp.party or the installation of a new unit at his stop premises, the opp.party had totally failed to comply the demand of the complainant to the supply of new power unit but finally the opp.party had told the complainant to the effect that he required two months time for the supply and installation of a new power unit at the complainant’s shop premises and the complainant had agreed in terms of the requests of the opp.party as to the said time is not correct. There is neither neglect not deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. So also there is no latches or omission on the part of the opp.party. This complaint is only retaliation and counter blast against the filing of complainant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Hence the opp.party prays for the dismissal of the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer of opp.party 2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 3. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 is marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined.. Ext. D1 is marked. POINTS: Complainant’s case is that the complainant purchase a power unit from the opp.party for a sum of Rs.29,000/- by issuing a cheque of the Punjab National Bank, Ochira. But the power unit was not functioning properly. Instead of replacement opp.party argued to repair the same. After repair made by the opp.party the mplainant refused to to take the power unit back as it was not functioning well. Complainant demanded a new brand one, after repeated demands the opp.party promised to supply a new power unit after two months. But the opp.party failed to comply the promise. Then the complainant demand the cheque which he had given to the opp.party. As the opp.party was not ready to give back the cheque the complainant filed this complaint for getting relief. Opp.party denied the entire contents of the complainant. According to the opp.party complainant is not a consumer of the opp.party and he is not conducting any business concern. He is only conducting repairs unit at his house. Opp.party’s contention is that the complainant had received a loan of Rs.29,000/- from him. Then the complainant issued a cheque of Punjab National Bank, Ochira. The said cheque was dishonoured. For getting the said amount, the opp.party filed a cheque case before Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Kollam Under Section 138of Negatiable Instruments Act. In order to avoid the payment of said amount. In the case the complainant filed this false case and prays for the dismissal of the complaint. For fin ding out the first point ie. whether the complainant is a consumer of opp.party it is to be decided that whether the opp.party is running business concern. For proving the sale truncation complainant produced Ext.P1. It does not bear the signature or sealof opp.party concern. Since the opp.party denies the said purchase done by the complainant the complaint ought to have proved the purchase with documentary evidence. According to the opp.party he had never sold any so called power unit to the complainant. If the power unit costing Rs.29,000/- it will be a branded one and it has warranty card and bill. Here the complainant failed to produce the warranty card or bill . Mere denial of issuing job card during deposition of PW.1 is not sufficient to prove the sale transaction. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove his case that he is a consumer of opp.party. The point found accordingly. The next point is to be decided is that whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of opp.party. According to the complainant since the opp.party had not discharged his obligation towards the complainant even after two months there is deficiency in service on their part. According to the opp.party Ext.P1 does belong to the opp.party as it does not contain the seal or signature of the opp.party. According to them during 2005, the complainant approached the opp.party and enquired the market prices of certain electronic items. The opp.party casually scribbled market prices of various electronic goods and its fitting charges of the different companies. Ext.P1 is one of such scribbled paper. Since Ext.P1 does n ot contain the seal, signature or even initial of opp.party we cannot accept. Ext.P1 as a document for the sale transaction. Hence the complainant failed to prove alleged transaction between the complainant and the opp.party with material evidence. On considering the entire evidence we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opp.party. In the result the complaint fails and the same is dismissed without cost. Dated this the day of June, 2010. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Karthikeyan List of documents for the complainant P1. - Paper given by opp.party instead of Bill List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. –Jose Antony List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Copy of complaint in C.C.No.219/07 | 
