Today is fixed for admission hearing.

Complainant is present.

This case is being conducted by the Complainant in person.

The case is taken up for admission hearing.

Heard the Complainant.  Perused the petition of complaint.  It appears that the Complainant has made allegation that he went to the shop of the O.P. on 28-09-2016 to purchase 20” LED TV.

Thereafter, the O.P., owner of the shop, gives him a packet and told him that this is your TV in side said packet.  Then this Complainant asked the O.P. to test the said TV and this O.P. asked him that his agent namely Noor will go to his house and he will set and run the said TV.  Complainant paid Rs.6,500/- for 20” LED TV to O.P. and brought the same to his house.

Thereafter, Noor came to his house and opened the packet and told him that the article containing in the packet is the Monitor and he told the Complainant that this Monitor is to be changed and TV to be brought from the shop of the O.P. in lieu of Monitor.

Thereafter, this Complainant made talk over telephone with O.P. for giving him TV but O.P. did not give him TV in place of Monitor.  O.P. also did not pay back Rs.6500/- taken as the price of the TV from him.  As such, Complainant has made allegation that the O.P. has made practice fraud on him.  So, he has filed this complaint and prays for return of Rs.6500/- from the O.P.

So, on perusal of the petition of complaint and after hearing the Complainant, it appears to us that Complainant went to the O.P. shop to purchase 20” LED TV at Rs.6500/- but O.P. has delivered him a Monitor in place of 20” LED TV after taking Rs.6,500/- from him as price of LED TV.

So, Complainant has alleged that he has been cheated by the O.P.

                                                                                                                                            Page 1 of 2.

C. C. No. 32/2017.

                                  Contd. Order No.02. Dt. 02/05/2017.

On perusal of Xerox copy of receipt it appears from the receipt that there is nothing in the said receipt that 20” LED TV was sold to the Complainant.  So, Complainant could not be

able to satisfy prima facie that he has purchased 20” LED TV from the shop of the O.P. at Rs.6,500/- on 28-09-2016.

So, we find that Complainant could not be able to prove prima facie that he has purchased 20” LED TV from the shop of the O.P.

We also find that Complainant could not be able to satisfy prima facie that there is a relation in between Complainant and the O.P. is consumer and service provider.

So, we find no prima facie case to entertain this complaint.

So, this complaint will not be admitted and is liable to be dismissed.

Hence, it is

                                                                  Ordered

That the Complaint no.32 of 2017 be and same is hereby dismissed ; but without cost.

Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the Complainant free of cost, if applied for.