JUDGMENT

            The complainant has filed this complaint u/sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 against the OP alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in not issuing the bill for the purchasing articles and to replace the damaged glasses along with to give remaining glasses to the worth of Rs.10,000/-.  Hence prays for seeking relief for to issue the bills for purchasing articles and to replace the damaged glasses and to give remaining glasses to the worth of Rs.10,000/- along with Rs.25,000/- for physical and mental agony, Rs.25,000/- for unfair trade of practice and Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- for litigation and other miscellaneous expenses.

             Brief averments of the Complaint are;

            2.  That the complainant alleged that in the month of October 2013 she had purchased the glasses of Rs.2,00,000/- from the OP shop and has paid the amount to the OP after purchasing the glass articles.  After the payment of the amount to the OP, instead of issuing a valid bill he has mentioned the amount written on a paper and gave to her.  After enquiring about the valid bill with the OP he has stated that he will give today or tomorrow and went on postponing it.  In the same manner the complainant has purchased all the articles from the OP shop and has paid the remaining amount.  Till today the OP has not issued a valid bill to the complainant.

            The complainant further alleged that the complainant has made a bank loan and has opened the shop.  The complainant has to show to the bank authorities regarding the expenses of the loan amount and for this purpose the valid bills are necessary.  The complainant further alleged that the OP has not issued the valid bills to the purchased articles and has committed unfair trade practice.  Secondly, in the articles purchased by the complainant, few glasses are damaged and the complainant has asked for replacement/exchanged of damaged glasses.  Whereas the OP has not at all exchanged or replaced the damaged glasses.  The complainant further alleged that thirdly the OP has not given the remaining glasses to the tone of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  The reason is that at that time there was shortage of glasses and till today the OP has not given glasses to the complainant.  The complainant alleged that she has purchased the glasses and other articles from the OP shop for the sake of interiors work to her shop. 

            The complainant further alleged that on 20-09-2014,  a legal notice was issued to the OP and the said notice is served on him.  The complainant alleged that after the service of notice to OP, the OP has given reply notice through his advocate denying all the facts as false and the OP in his reply notice further stated that a cheque issued by the complainant for the tune of Rs.25,000/- was bounced and the cheque was given to the complainant after repaying the amount of Rs.25,000/-.  Hence has filed this complaint and prays for to issue the bills for purchasing articles and to replace the damaged glasses, and to give remaining glasses to the worth of Rs.10,000/- along with Rs.25,000/- for physical and mental agony, Rs.25,000/- for unfair trade practice and Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- for litigation and other miscellaneous expenses as prayed above.

            3.  This Forum after admitting the complaint, a notice was issued to the opponent and the notice was served upon the opponent.  In pursuance of issuance of notice to the opponent, the opponent has failed to appear before the Forum on the date of appearance and hence he was placed exparte and the case was posted for complainant evidence.  At the time of Argument stage the counsel for the OP filed vakalat and an IA U/O IX Rule 7 of CPC to set aside the order of Exparte dated: 27-04-2015 and allow the OP to appear and lead the above case.  The said IA-1 was allowed on cost of Rs.1,000/- and directed the OP to file his written version.  Inspite of giving sufficient time to OP, the OP failed to file his written version and was taken as not filed and posted for arguments.

            4.  On the basis of the above pleading, the following point have been framed;

POINTS

1. Whether the complainant further proves that there is unfair trade practice in not exchanging the damaged glass and to give the remaining glass to the tone of Rs.10,000/-

2.Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service in not issuing the valid bills to the purchased articles?

3.Whether the complainant further proves that he is entitled for the relief sought for?

4.What order?

5. To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant herself examined as PW1 and has got marked documents as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 and closed their side of evidence.

6. Heard the arguments.

7. Our findings on the above points are as under;

Point No. 1 :  Negative

Point No. 2 :   Affirmative

Point No. 3:   Partly Affirmative.

                  Point No. 4 : As per final Order for the following

REASONS

8. POINT No. 1 and 2:  As these two issues are interconnected each other, hence they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts, evidence, documents and arguments.

 9.  On perusal of the pleadings, evidence coupled with the documents of respective parties on record, there is no dispute between the parties that the complainant has not visited to the shop of the opponent.  It is also admitted that the complainant had purchased the glass and other articles from the OP shop only.  To prove the case of the complainant, the PW-1 has reiterated the complainant averments in the examination in chief and in support of her case she has produced the documents pertaining the photos of the damaged glass which has been marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3.  PW1 has averred and deposed that the in the purchased glass articles few glass were damaged and has asked the OP for exchange of the damaged glass.  The documents which have been relied by the complainant more specifically with respect to Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3.  Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 clearly states that the glass is already fixed in the shop of the complainant.  After fixing the glass in the shop, the damage is shown.  If at all the glass were damaged before fixing it in the shop the complainant would have not fixed the glass in the shop,, instead of fixing it, she would have kept it aside.  All the Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 shows that the glass are fixed in the shop believing to her the version with respect to damaged glass was given by OP at the time of purchasing the glass is not justifiable one.  The complainant would have checked it and immediately would have exchanged it, instead of fixing the glass in the shop.  To substantiate the said damage of glass, the complainant has not produced any other cogent and corroborative evidence except putting suggestion to that, they have given damaged glass.  Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove that the OP had given few damaged glass to the complainant.

10.  Further with respect to the remaining glass to be given to the complainant to the tone of Rs.10,000/-.  But to substantiate the said contention no cogent documents have been produced by the said complainant.  The question of considering that the OP has to give the remaining glass to the tone of Rs.10,000/- is not believable and so also their version is not believable with respect to give the remaining glass to the tone of Rs.10,000/-.

            11.  No doubt the opponent has not filed written version and has not adduced any evidence but the said weakness of the opponent cannot be made use by the complainant for her case.

            12.  PW1 has further averred that a legal notice was issued to OP as per Ex.A.4 and she has also produced the copy before the Forum.  It has been clearly mentioned in Ex.A.4 that OP has not issued any valid bills to the purchase of the above said articles.  But to substantiate the same the complainant has not all produced any bills.  It is averred by the complainant in his chief examination that OP had written on a plain paper and gave to her regarding the payment details of the amount.  But no bills were produced by the complainant.  Therefore, on perusal of Ex.A.5, which has been produced by the complainant, the reply notice given by the OP counsel to the complainant notice.  It is crystal clear that it is admitted by the OP that the complainant has purchased the articles to the tone of Rs.1,50,206/- (one lakh fifty thousand two hundred six only).  Therefore, it can be presumed that the complainant has purchased the articles to the tone of Rs.1,50,206/- with the OP. 

            13.  On the contrary, as per the oral evidence coupled with the documentary evidence, the complainant has partly proved that she has purchased the articles to the tone of Rs.1,50,206/- with the OP and the said fact has been clearly discloses in Ex.A.5.  Hence in the light of above observation, the complainant has partly proved the deficiency of service in not issuing the valid bill.  Hence in the light of above observation we constrained to hold point No.1 in Negative and 2 in Affirmative.

            14.  Point No. 3:-  In the light of observation made by us on point No.1 and 2, since the complainant has filed this case for relief of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice with respect to claiming the issuance of valid bills to the purchased articles and replacement/exchange the damaged glass and to give remaining glass to the worth of Rs.10,000/-.  In the light of observation made by us while answering the point No.1 in the affirmative and in the light of observations made by us while answering point No.2 in Negative.  The present complainant is entitled for issuing the valid bills to the tone of Rs.1,50,206/- as prayed for.  Accordingly I constrained to hold issue No. 3 in the partly affirmative.

15.  POINT No. 4 :- Hence, in the result, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. OP is directed to issue the valid bill to the tone of Rs.1,50,206/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) fine to be paid to the legal service authorities and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  Failing which, 9% p.a. interest will be charged from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.
3. Send the free copies of this order to both parties.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, typed by her, typescript, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Forum on 4^th day of January 2016.

// ANNEXURE //

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.