1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that he being the owner of Maruti Celerio car bearing Regd. No. OD-33-U-7216, on 19.11.2019 obtained Pollution Under Control certificate (PUC) from the O.P. and paid Rs. 100/-, wherein the testing report declared as FAIL which caused mental agony as the car was purchased on 31.10.2018.  It is submitted that as per advise of experts of Maruti show room, on 31.11.2019, he obtained another PUC at Balaram Mobile Pollution Testing Center, Ambaguda on payment of Rs. 100/- which resulted as PASS.  The allegations of complainant is that on 03.12.2019 while he enquired the matter with the O.P., who admitted his guilt and replied that on 19.11.2019 his testing machines were defective and admitted the authenticity of the certificate issued by Balaram Pollution Testing Center.  Thus suffering from mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss, he filed the case seeking a direction to the O.P. to refund Rs. 100/- and to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation.

2. The Opposite Party appeared through their Ld. Counsel who filed written version admitting that on 19.11.2019 he carried out the pollution testing of the alleged vehicle of complainant showing the report as FAIL but strictly denied the allegations of complainant contending that he runs the pollution testing center which is duly authorized by Odisha Motor Vehicle Department vide certificate no. OR030001 & OR030002 and follows the proper procedure, formalities and as per rules he issued the PUC certificate against the alleged vehicle and the PUC certificate issued by Balaram Mobile Pollution Testing Center is not in his knowledge. It is also contended that no documents were filed by the complainant to prove that as per suggestion of expert of Maruti Show Room at Bhubaneswar, he checked up his alleged vehicle at different PUC testing center.  Further it is contended that the two numbers of PUC certificates were obtained on two different dates with a gap of 12 days, hence the complainant might have inspected his vehicle in any other testing center within these 12 days and thereafter obtained the PUC certificates from Balaram Mobile Pollution Testing Center, and since no prima facie evidence is there, as such with other contentions, showing his deficiency in his part, Opp.Party prayed to dismiss the case.

3. Complainant filed certain documents like :

1. Copy of Aadhar Card vide no. 5002 0806 8439
2. Copy of R.C. Book bearing no. OD-33-U-7216
3. Copy of PUC certificate issued by Opp. Party
4. Copy of PUC certificate issued by Balaram Mobile Pollution Testing Centre.

Whereas Opp. Party has filed documents like :

1. Copy of authorization to issue PUC certificate issued by OMV Department bearing no. OR0300001.
2. Copy of authorization to issue PUC certificate issued by OMV Department bearing no. OR0300002.
3. Copy of vehicle class wise summary report.
4. Copy of Field Service Report issued by NETEL (India) Ltd.
5. Copy of testing report of 12 numbers of different vehicles all dated 19.11.2019.

4. Parties have fived certain documents in support of their submissions.  At the time of hearing, only the A/R for Opp. Party is present and complainant is absent on repeated calls, hence heard from the A/R for O.Ps only.  Since the complainant is absent at the time of hearing, the documents filed by the O.P. remained unchallenged and unrebuttal.  Perused the documents and materials available in the record.

5. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding the issue of PUC certificate by the O.P. vide no. OR03000020004642 dated 19.11.2019 and issue of PUC certificate by one Balaram Mobile Pollution Testing Centre vide no. OR01000050004123 dated 30.11.2019.  The allegations of complainant is that while the pollution testing report of O.P. shows as FAIL, the pollution testing report of Balaram Mobile Pollution Testing Centre shows as PASS and admit of O.P. of his machine as defective and issued such certificate is unfair trade practice.  Whereas the contentions of O.P.is that as on 19.11.2019 he has carried out the pollution testing report of many vehicles and all such reports shows as PASS but only the vehicle of complainant shows as FAIL and no complaint ever made to him by any customers and also contended that those two reports were obtained in a different date i.e. within gap of 12 days and complainant might have rectified the defects of his vehicle, thereafter obtained the pollution certificate from Balaram Mobile Pollution Testing Centre for which the said report shows as PASS, as denied his liabilities.

6. We have carefully gone through the documents filed by both parties and ascertained that the two numbers of pollution certificate issued one by O.P. and another by Balaram Mobile Pollution Testing Centre are issued within a gap of 12 days. We fell the complainant must have rectified the defects of his alleged vehicle after receive the FAIL report from the O.P. and thereafter obtained another pollution certificate from another pollution testing centre, which result as PASS. Had the complainant obtained the certificate on the same day i.e. 19.11.2019 in two different pollution testing centre, than the difference could have easily ascertained. But without doing so, the complainant obtained the second pollution certificate at a belated stage, which as per our view, is of no value. Further it is observed that the alleged dispute arose on 19.11.2019, which is also lapse of one year after the vehicle is registered i.e. 18.10.2018. we feel the manufacturer of the alleged vehicle is a necessary party to the present dispute who has issued the pollution free certificate for one year against the alleged vehicle and without adding the manufacturer as necessary party, the fact cannot be ascertained. Hence we do not think that the O.P. has committed any deficiency in service.

7. Further it is observed that the O.P. is having any machinery defects as alleged by complainant, than the onus of proving the same in upon the complainant by producing technical report from any expert to that effect. But the complainant miserably failed to prove the same by producing any documentary evidence and without any documentary wvidence, burden of liability cannot be fastened on the O.P.

8. Further O.Ps has filed certain documents in support of this contentions, which were never challenged by the complainant, as such the documents are remained unchallenged and unrebuttal. Hard the O.P. has any machinery defects, it is on the complainant to challenge the said documents filed by O.P. and also to produce any technical report of expert. In this connection, we have fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Anuj Agarwal Vrs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein Hon’ble Commission has held that “There is no illegality or jurisdictional error where an order is passed on written version and document of OP unchallenged by the complainant.”

9. Considering the above discussions, we feel the complainant has not come with proper evidence to prove his submissions and we do not think that the present case is a fit case for proceeding.  

                                                                                                          ORDER

                         Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the present case is dismissed against the O.Ps having no merit.  No                  order as to costs.  Parties to bear their own costs.