Delhi

North East

CC/69/2016

Kanhya Lal Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Kaka - Opp.Party(s)

23 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 69/16

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Kanhya Lal Sharma 2417, Chippiwara Kalan, Delhi-110006.		Complainant
		Versus
		Mr. Kaka, Shop No. 1/1913, Street 25, Moti Ram Road, East Ram Nagar,Delhi-110032.		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		24.02.2016
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		23.10.2017
			DATE OF DECISION      :		23.10.2017

 

 

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:-

Order by Shri N.K.Sharma, President:-

 

ORDER

1. Present complaint has been filed by Shri Kanhya Lal Sharma against Mr.  Kaka, alleging deficiency in service. Facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had availed the services of OP for filling gas in his Lloyd AC by paying Rs. 1,900/- on 7.5.2015. It is stated that on the next day there was no cooling in the AC for which the complainant requested OP either to refill gas again or refund Rs. 1,900/-. It has been stated that the OP failed to provide the services and refund Rs. 1,900/-. Hence, the present complaint praying for refund of Rs. 1,900/- paid to OP, Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs. 15,000/- as cost of litigation. The complainant has annexed visiting card of “Kaka Air-conditioner repairing” alongwith endorsement on reverse side, copy of Aadhar card, complaint dated 15.6.15 to S.H.O. PS: Jama Masjid, complaint to Dy. Commissioner (Crime) dated 20.07.2015.
2. Written Statement filed upon service of the summons and in his reply OP has taken several pleas such as: that the complainant has no locus to file present complaint; complaint being bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties. It has been specifically denied by OP that the complainant had taken the services for filling gas and paid Rs. 1,900/- in lieu of services. It has also been submitted that the signature on endorsement on the visiting card were not of the OP.
3. In rejoinder to written statement where the contents of complaint were reiterated and those of reply of OP were denied. It was stated that               on 2.9.16 and 19.9.16 the OP was willing to pay Rs. 1,900/-.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by complainant where he has reiterated contents of the complaint and has annexed discharge report of his wife thereby stating that his wife being heart patient has difficulty in breathing due to heat, because of non-functioning of Air-conditioner. OP examined Kaka @ Shoeb Chaudhary who has stated that the complainant has forged the alleged guarantee only to implicate the OP and no service had been provided to complainant.
5. Written arguments were filed on behalf of both the parties. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant and Ld. Counsel appearing for OP and have perused the material. The complainant has stated that the OP has charged Rs. 1,900/- for refilling gas and had given one season guarantee as per endorsement, which has been disputed by OP. The complainant has not placed on record any document to substantiate that the efficiency of the AC had deteriorated due to act of OP. Also, the complainant has also not placed anything on record to substantiate his claim that OP was willing to refund Rs. 1,900/-. Further, the OP has raised dispute with respect to the signature being forged which cannot be decided by this Forum in summary proceedings as it needs trial. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merit without orders to cost.
6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on  23.10.2017)         

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member