Haryana

StateCommission

A/687/2015

AMANDEEP KAPIL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANJEET SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

BHUSHAN BHATIA

28 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                       

First Appeal No.687 of 2015

Date of Institution:18/21.08.2015

Date of Decision:28.04.2016

 

Amandeep Kapil S/o Sh.S.K.Kapil, r/o H.No.B2 595, Lekhram Colony, Bitna Road, Near Parshuram Bhawan, Pinjore, Panchkula, Haryana.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

1.       Manjit Singh S/o Sh.Balwan Singh C/o Jangra Furniture, Bitna road, Near Shivam Washing Station, Pinjore, Panchkula, Haryana.

2.       Jangra Furniture, Bitna road, Near Shivam Washing Station, Pinjore, Panchkula, Haryana.

         …..Respondents

CORAM:     Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-     Mr.Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Deepak Verma, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

 

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI MEMBER:

 

1. Amandeep Kapil, complainant is in appeal against the Order dated 17.07.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Panchkula, whereby his complaint against Manjeet Singh C/o Jangra Furniture Pinjore has been dismissed by holding that he was not a “Consumer” within the definition of the expression as provided in Section 2 (I) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   
2. In brief, the complainant got the job of wood work done with material @Rs.350/- per sq meter with the OP-1 by paying the advance amount Rs.12000/- to OP-1 to start his job work. It was agreed between the parties that the entire job work would be completed within the period of 10 days and it was further agreed that the OPs would use the material of best quality. After that OP-1 took two months time in finalizing the work, which caused inconvenience to the complainant. The complainant paid the entire amount i.e. Rs.1,12,000/- and demanded the bills, but the OP refused to give the bills on one pretext or the other. After sometime, the complainant noticed that the work done by the OP was not up to the mark and not in accordance with the agreement. The  complainant asked the OP to do the work again, but OP refused the same. Aggrieved against this act of the OP, the complainant approached the District Forum claiming refund of Rs.1,12,000/- alongwith compensation for harassment and litigation expenses alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
3. OPs did not appear despite service, hence it was proceeded against exparte. The learned District Forum after going through the record came to the conclusion that the complainant was not a consumer as he failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim.
4. Against the impugned order dated 17.07.2015, the complainant has filed the present appeal reiterating his submissions as made by him before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. There is no iota of evidence on the record to support the allegations of the complainant that he had got the wood work done by the OPs or there was any agreement between the parties in support his allegations. In the absence of any such documentary proof, the learned District Forum had no option, but to reject the complaint. Hence, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order. Even in the appeal before us, the complainant – appellant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his allegations. Hence, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.

 

April 28th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.