Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/24/603

Satish Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kumar Radio - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant in person

09 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No: 603 dated 07.05.2024.                              Date of decision: 09.12.2024. 

 

Satish Gupta Son of Sohan Lal, resident of House No.1015/48, Geeta Colony, Gali No.3, Jagraon, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. M. No.98724-60280.

                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Kumar Radio, Opp. Water Tank, Jhansi Rani Chowk, Jagraon, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                   …..Opposite party 

Complaint against Kumar Radio, Near Pani Wali Tanki, Jhansi Rani Chowk, Jagraon, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana for committing fraud and abusing the complainant.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Satish Gupta in person.

For OP                           :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one LCD of TCL for Rs.50,000/- vide bill No.1081 dated 24.07.2023 from the OP Kumar Radio, but when after some time the said LCD was un-functional due to technical problem then at the time of its repair, the complainant came to know that the shopkeeper has not given the LCD which the complainant purchased and he was delivered model 65P 635 dishonestly. The complainant stated that the OP fraudulently sold LCD of other model than he purchased. On enquiry from the OP, the OP abused him and threw him out of the shop. In the end, the complainant prayed for taking action against the OP.

2.                Upon notice none turned up on behalf of the OP and as such, the OP was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.09.2024.

3.                In exparte evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint and also prayed for giving LCD Model 65P 725 from the OP along with compensation. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex. C1 is the copy Tax Invoice dated 24.07.2023, Ex. C2 is the copy of photograph of model 65P635, Ex. C3 is the copy of Aadhar Card of the complainant and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the exparte arguments of the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant.

5.                Admittedly, the complainant vide Tax Invoice No.1081 dated 24.07.2023 Ex. C1, purchased one TCL LED Uhd Tv 65p725 for Rs.50,000/- including taxes  from the OP. As per averments made by the complainant in the complaint as well as in affidavit Ex. CA, he experienced some technical problem in the LED and at the time of its repair, he came to know that he was delivered the LED of some different model than he purchased vide invoice Ex. C1. On asking from the OP, the OP allegedly abused the complainant. However, the complainant has not produced any job sheet to prove that on which occasion he got the LED repair and even has not mentioned the name of the workshop from whom he got checked the LED in question. Moreover, the complainant has placed on record copy of photograph mentioning Model 65P635 but has failed to produce any warranty card as well as booklet of the product to establish the fact that he was delivered/handed over the different model than he purchased for consideration. So the complainant has failed to discharge initial onus to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP by any cogent and convincing evidence.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in SGS India Ltd. Vs Dolphin International Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 decided on 06.10.2021 (LL 2021 SC 544) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while relying upon on its own judgment reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. As well as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (LL 2021 SC 544), has held as under:-

“19.  The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.”

 

6.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.  

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.12.2024.

Gobind Ram.