Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President.
1. Heard Mr.R.D.Sulakhe-Advocate for the appellant.
2. This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by District Consumer Forum, Thane on 19/6/2010 in consumer complaint no.504/2009. The appellant is an original opponent while the respondent is an original complainant. Respondent has filed above referred consumer complaint. Said complaint was allowed partly and the appellant has been directed to pay an amount of `3287/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. Appellant is further directed to pay an amount of `2000/- by way of mental agony and `1000/- as cost.
3. The grievance of the complainant/respondent was that he has purchased 1) Godrej Air conditioner and 2) Godrej Washing machine. In order to have after service maintenance contract the complainant had been to the opponents and paid an amount of `3287/- to the employees of the appellant. Said amount was paid on 21/3/2009 and it was assured that within 21 days if there is any complaint in respect or Air-conditioner and washing machine maintenance will be done. However, thereafter no maintenance was looked after and, therefore, complaint was filed for return of money and claiming the damages of `10,000/- by way of mental agony and legal expenses.
4. In the said complaint, appellant had appeared and filed a reply admitting that the Air-conditioner and washing machine was purchased. However, it is denied that the appellant has received an amount of `3,287/-. It is contended that there is no receipt given by the appellant and the money which has been paid to the alleged employee is/was not an employee and, therefore, appellant is not under obligation to provide a service. Therefore, only question arises whether the complainant /respondent has paid the amount to the appellants. Admittedly, in view of the defence the service has not been provided. Because it is their case that amount has not been received and, therefore, service has not been provided. Only question therefore arises for consideration whether amount has been received by the appellant or not. In order to prove and establish that the amount has been paid, the respondent has produced on record application given to the appellant. It is a printed title of the said application has been reproduced by the District Consumer Forum in its order while giving the reasons. It is interesting to note that the application is having a code number. It is having an application no.1125187 dated 31/3/2009. It is also having salesman code number i.e.1125487. Other particulars are also there. It specifically states that it is an application for balance of the washing machine and the Air-conditioner and contract for two years and one year respectively. Mode of payment is in cash and amount is received by one Rupali. Her telephone/mobile number is also quoted being 62961365. Thus, the application is a printed application of the appellant and it appears all the particulars in the background of these circumstances the appellant ought to have produced on record the material to demonstrate that said Rupali is not an employee of the appellant. Therefore, appellant shall have produced on record at least an affidavit of the Manager. However, except raising contention no affidavit evidence was filed in the matter. There is nothing on record to rebut the evidence produced by the complainant by way of printed application stated as above, where one Rupali has given particulars of her mobile number. Therefore, taking into consideration this material District Consumer Forum has come to the conclusion that the amount of `3287/- has been received by the appellant and the appellant was under obligation to provide the service. It is interesting to note that the District Consumer Forum has not granted any damages or compensation for not providing the service. District Consumer Forum has only directed return of money which has been paid by the respondent and `2000/- were directed by way of mental agony and `1000/- by way of cost. Taking into consideration overall material placed on record, we find that case has been properly decided by the District Consumer Forum.
5. Now-a-days in many shops and corporate sector companies employees are appointed to deal with customer. The customers also deal with these employees being representative of those shops and/or corporate sector undertaking. Therefore, it will be inappropriate to enter into enquiry whether particular employee is an employee of shop or corporate sector undertaking. Therefore, burden of establishing that particular person is not employee is/and shall be of shop owner and/or corporate sector undertaking. Normally, consumers will not make false statement in this respect. If such area or point is made subject matter of scrutiny, it will encourage unfair practice to the detriment of consumer. We find no substance in appeal. Appeal is rejected. Hence the order:-
ORDER
Appeal is rejected.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 09th August, 2010.
