Complainant Gurdarshan Singh Bedi through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the amount of Rs.6500/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest may kindly be granted to him and opposite party be also directed to pay all the expenses mentioned above to him for harassment and mental agony.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that an order was placed with the opposite party by him in the month of October, 2015 i.e. 05.10.2015 to make Iron Gate for his house and opposite party informed him that the weight of the gate will be about 1½ quintals but the opposite party made the gate about 3 quintals instead of 1½ quintals by putting heavy rod around the gate intentionally, willfully while playing fraud with the complainant just to increase the weight of the gate. It was pleaded that an order was also placed with the opposite party to make small shed for door for which opposite party received Rs.500/- as advance from the complainant but opposite party did not make any shed and putting off the matter with one pretext or the other and till today opposite party failed to supply the shed and also return the amount. It was further pleaded that promise was made by the opposite party to fix stay rods for control of the Iron Gate and it will not go outside but the opposite party did not come to the house of the complainant and also did not fulfill his promise. It was next pleaded that opposite party assured the complainant that they will return the amount of Rs.6,000/- i.e. price of one quintal and also made the shed for door and supply the same to him but the opposite party had failed to do so. It was pleaded that complainant himself and his relative and son many times approached the opposite party and requested them to return the amount and also supply the shed for door and fix stay rods for Iron Gate but the opposite party did not care to the requests of the complainant and had passed eight/nine months but opposite party did not complete the work of the complainant. It was pleaded that a legal notice dated 06.06.2016 was also issued to the opposite party but the opposite party did not give any reply to the same and failed to make the payment and also failed to complete the entire work which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, hence this complaint.
3. Dasti notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite party but opposite party did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.09.2016.
4. Complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, affidavit of Sh.Amarjot Singh Ex.C-2 and copy of legal notice Ex.C3 and closed his evidence.
5. We have duly heard the learned counsel for the complainant in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/document(s) as produced on records in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (under the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the opposite party vendor has preferred to stay away from the present proceedings and was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte vide the forum’s orders dated 21.09.2016. We take judicial notice of the settled principle in law that a litigant opting/preferring to be proceeded against ex-parte does not have a cogent/logical defense to prosecute but at the same time the adjudicatory authority shall ensure that no undue prejudice is caused to the legal rights and interests of the ex-parte litigant.
6. We find that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations as put forth in his complaint by way of producing any cogent evidence in the form of Performa invoice, Invoice, Advance Paid Receipt and/or any other reliable document etc in the absence of which the lone affidavits Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and legal notice Ex.C3 do not amount to more than mere ‘bald’ statements. It is also not understood as to why advance/full payments were made to the OP vendor in case the complainant did not approve of the quality and quantity of the goods supplied. In the absence of any documentary evidence of the alleged work-orders and its supply etc even the statutory consumer relationship does not get proved for any furtherance in the matter.
7. In the light of the all above, we find the present complaint as bereft of all statutory merit under the applicable provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no order as to its costs. The complainant shall however be at liberty to avail himself of any other remedy of his choice/advice in law but proceeded as per the procedure prescribed in law.
- Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
OCT. 21, 2016 Member.
*YP*
