This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to refund `275 the price of the price tube light set and to pay an amount of `1000 as compensation.

The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a tube light set from the opposite party on 06.03.2012 for a sum of `275.  The set is useless since the nut and bolt of set is defective.  Hence prays for an order against opposite party to direct him to refund the price f the set and an amount of  `1000 as compensation.

          Pursuant to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version.  Opposite party contended that the allegation of the complainant that he has purchased a tube light set from him for `275 is false.  Complainant paid only `235.  The allegation that the nut and bolt of the tube light set is defective is utter false.  There is guarantee only for the chalk of the tube for one year.  For the frame and light rode there is no guarantee.  The complainant approached the opposite party twice with nut and wire in loosed position.   It was then set right and the side holder also replaced once.  It has become defective because persons who do not know how to fit has tried to fit the set.  He came to the shop last time with an old frame and asked him to fix a new chalk and tube light rod on the same, which was not done by opposite party.  It is upon this grudge complainant happened to lodge this complaint.  The tube light, frame and chalk which was sold by this opposite party has no fault even now.  If there is any mistake this opposite party is ready to replace the same at any time.  The readiness to replace the same was not accepted by the complainant due to greediness.  This complaint ill motivated to grab money.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  Hence to dismiss the complaint.

          On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1.           Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2.           Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed in the complaint?

3.           Relief and cost.

The evidence consist of affidavit evidence filed on both sides.

Issues No.1 to 3 :

          Purchase of Tube light set has been admitted by opposite party but disputed the price for which it is brought by the complainant.  Complainant did not produce the bill.  Supporting evidence has not also produced except the affidavit evidence which is merely a repeatation of pleadings in the complaint.

          Complainant filed chief affidavit repeating what is pleaded in complaint. Complainant alleged that the nut and bolt of the tube light set was loose and thus the tube light set became useless.  Opposite party contended that complainant twice approached opposite party with the set and seen wire and nut of the side holder loosed.  Opposite party contended further that both occasions set was repaired free of cost and the side holder once replaced also.   Complainant kept fully silent with respect to this contention of opposite party.  Affidavit evidence of the complainant kept silent totally with respect to the repair and replacement.  That means it can be assumed that repair has been carried out and replacement was made as alleged.

          Moreover, the case of the opposite party is that the ocmplaint of the mistake of side holder occurred because some persons who do not know the fitting works attempted to fit the set.  Complainant has not denied it.   Affidavit of complainant goes to say nothing about this contention of opposite party.  If it was not true complainant could have denied it and state further what was really happened by adducing supporting evidence.

          It can be seen that opposite party raised an allegation against complainant that when second time approached opposite party complainant was having an old frame with him and asked opposite party to fit a new chalk and tube light rod on that old frame but it was denied by the opposite party.  Opposite party then contended that it was this grudge that led complainant to lodge his complaint.  Complainant did not care to attend their allegations of the opposite party.   Complainant has the liability to explain whether or not any person who do not know fitting work had been attempted to fit the set, when such an allegation has been raised against him.  Complainant is not expected to keep mum when it was contended that it was the above said reason and grudge that guided him to lodge the complaint.  He is obliged to give correct answers to the allegations against him.  Silence is good but it is bad wherever, there is a need to speak.  Complainant herein is legally liable to give reasonable explanations to the allegations raised against him. 

          Complainant could not prove none of his allegation. He cannot even convince the Forum that the Tube light set was defective one.  Opposite party has specifically contended that there is no defect for the light set even now.  Complainant did not adduce any supporting evidence to prove that the set is defective.  Mere raising of allegations and repeating the same in affidavit evidence is not sufficient to come into conclusion that the tube light set is defective and thereby there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence we are of opinion that complainant in no way deserving for an order in favour of him.  The issues No.1 to 3 are found against complainant

          In the result, complaint is dismissed. 

          No order as to costs.

Dated this the 29^th day of September, 2012.

                             Sd/-                    Sd/-                Sd/-

President             Member            Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

Nil

Exhibits for the opposite parties

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

Nil

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

                                                                        /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT