Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.12.2016
Smt. Karishma Mandal
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 18,180/- ( Rs. Eighteen Thousand One Hundred Eighty only ) along with 12% interest.
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as compensation and litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has filed this case on Performa prescribed for filing the complaint. In Para – 4 of this Performa it has been asserted by the complainant that he has purchased a refill machine and raw material from opposite party ( swami Lakshmi Enterrpises ) after paying the price of Rs. 18,180/- vide annexure – 1. He has further asserted that the aforesaid machine and raw material were not upto mark as there was defects in the same due to which the complainant was put to loss.
He has prayed to direct the opposite party to return the price of the aforesaid items i.e. Rs. 18,180/- along with 12% interest and Rs. 10,000/- by way of litigation costs and compensation etc.
From perusal of record it appears that this case was filed on 28.02.2013 and on 04.03.2013 pre – admission notice was issued and later on vide order dated 20.09.2013 this case was admitted.
It further transpires that due to human error in order sheet of 11.05.2015 it is mentioned to put this case in admission. However later on this case was heard as it was admitted much earlier.
It further transpires from the order sheet dated 05.04.2016 that as the notice sent by this Forum returned with the remark “Refused” and hence notice was deemed to be served on opposite party and when opposite party did not appeared then only the complainant was heard.
From bare perusal of record it appears that the complainant has not stated about the nature of defect found in the aforesaid machine which he had purchased from opposite party after paying Rs. 18,180/-.
It further transpires that annexure – 1 which has been annexed in support of aforesaid purchase is not the proper receipt rather it is a Kachha receipt which does not support the assertion of the complaint.
Apart from it, no copy of any legal notice has been annexed.
In view of the aforesaid fact and circumstances it is difficult to hold deficiency on the part of opposite party no. 1.
For the reason stated above we find no merit in this case and as such this complaint stands dismissed.
Member President
