THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No. 104 of 2015

Date of Institution : 23.2.2015

Date of Decision : 16.07.2015

Ravi Kant Aggarwal S/o Late Sh. Raj Kumar Aggarwal, R/o # 37, White Avenue, Maqbool Road, Amritsar

...Complainant

Vs.

M/s. Bunty Optical & Belt House, Shop no. 36, Main Road, Ram Bagh, Opp.Bus Stand, Near I.D.H.Market, Tyre Market, Amritsar through its Proprietor/Partner

....Opp.party

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present : For the complainant : In person

For the opposite party : Sh. Narinder Kumar,Proprietor

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1 Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Ravi Kant Aggarwal under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he has purchased Spectacles for his minor son namely Aakash Aggarwal from the opposite party for

-2-

Rs. 350/- and paid Rs. 200/- in cash as advance and the balance amount of Rs. 150/- was to be paid at the time of delivery of the spectacles on 3.2.2015. Complainant has alleged that opposite party did not issue cash memo rather they provided a visiting card with an endorsement of balance of Rs. 150/- on 3.2.2015. The complainant visited the shop of the opposite party and presented his the visiting card and paid Rs. 150/- and the opposite party deleted the figure of Rs. 150/- on the visiting card and delivered back the visiting card alongwith the spectacles. On 4.2.2015 complainant's son noted that the frame of spectacles was cracked from both the sides . Then the complainant approached the opposite party and brought this fact to the knowledge of the opposite party and requested them to replace the spectacles with new one or refund the amount of Rs. 350/- . But the opposite party refused to do so rather misbehaved and insulted the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to replace the spectacles or to pay the full price alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 25000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant has not purchased the spectacles for his minor son from the opposite party. It was denied that the complainant paid Rs. 200/- in cash on 1.2.2015 and the balance amount of Rs. 150/- was to be paid at the time of

-3-

delivery of the spectacles on 3.2.2015. It was also denied that on 3.2.2015 complainant visited the shop of the opposite party and paid balance amount of Rs. 150/-. Opposite party also denied that the opposite party gave visiting card to the complainant and he deleted the figure of Rs. 150/- on the visiting card .It was also denied that opposite party delivered back the visiting card alongwith spectacles. It was submitted that opposite party never sold any articles from the shop without cash memo. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of visiting card Ex.C-2.

4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Narinder Kumar Ex.OP1.

5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the complainant and the opposite party and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the complainant and the opposite party.

6. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant approached the opposite party for the purchase of Spectacles for his minor son namely Aakash Aggarwal and he purchased the spectacles for a sum of Rs. 350/- from the opposie party. On 1.2.2015 complainant paid Rs. 200/- in cash as advance and the balance amount of

-4-

Rs. 150/- was to be paid at the time of delivery of the spectacles on 3.2.2015. The complainant alleges that opposite party did not issue cash memo rather they provided a visiting card with an endorsement of balance of Rs. 150/- on 3.2.2015. The complainant visited the shop of the opposite party and paid Rs. 150/-, the balance amount and the opposite party deleted the figure of Rs. 150/- on the visiting card Ex.C-2. The complainant alleges that opposite party had given assurance/guarantee that the frame of spectacles is of superior quality and in case of any default/defect in the frame within one year, the opposite party shall be liable to change/replace the same or to refund the price of the spectacles. On 4.2.2015 complainant's son noted that the frame of spectacles was cracked from both the sides . Then the complainant approached the opposite party and brought this fact to the knowledge of the opposite party and requested them to replace the spectacles with new one or refund the amount of Rs. 350/- . But the opposite party refused to do so rather misbehaved and insulted the complainant. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant never purchased the spectacles for his minor son from the opposite party. The opposite party also denied that the complainant paid Rs. 200/- in cash on 1.2.2015 and the balance amount of Rs. 150/- was to be paid at the time of delivery of the spectacles on

-5-

3.2.2015. Opposite party also denied that on 3.2.2015 complainant visited the shop of the opposite party and paid balance amount of Rs. 150/-. They also denied that the opposite party gave visiting card to the complainant and they deleted the figure of Rs. 150/- on the visiting card Ex.C-2. Opposite party further denied that the complainant approached the opposite party on 4.2.2015 with complaint that the frame of the spectacles was broken one and requested the opposite party to replace the same with new one or to refund the amount of the spectacles. Opposite party denied that they ever sold any article to any person without bill/cash memo. Opposite party further denied that they ever misbehaved with the complainant rather they submitted that the entire story has been concocted by the complainant just to harass the opposite party.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in proving on oath through his affidavit Ex.C-1 that he approached the opposite party on 1.2.2015 for the purchase of spectacles for a sum of Rs.350/- for his minor son Aakash Aggarwal and purchased the spectacles worth Rs. 350/-. He paid Rs. 200/- to the opposite party on 1.2.2015 whereas the balance amount of Rs. 150/- was payable on the delivery of spectacles on 3.2.2015 and the opposite party instead of issuing cash memo, handed over visiting card of the opposite party Ex.C-2, to the complainant by writing Rs. 150/- on this visiting card. If the complainant had never approached the opposite party for the purchase of

-6-

spectacles, as alleged by the opposite party then how the visiting card of the opposite party Ex.C-2 with special writing on it Rs. 150/-, came into the possession of the complainant. So it stands fully proved on record that complainant purchased spectacles from the opposite party worth Rs. 350/- and paid Rs. 200/- to the opposite party on 1.2.2015 and paid the balance amount of Rs. 150/- to the opposite party on 3.2.2015 and took the delivery of the spectacles. However, on 4.2.2015 the complainant noticed that the frame of the spectacles was cracked from both sides and he brought this fact to the notice of the opposite party and requested them either to replace the spectacles with new one or to refund the price of the spectacles Rs. 350/-. But the opposite party taking advantage that he had not issued any cash memo, did not do so. Resultantly we hold that opposite party is bound to either replace the spectacles of the son of the complainant with new one or to refund the amount of the frame of the spectacles Rs. 350./-.

9. As regards the other allegation levelled by the complainant that the opposite party misbehaved with the complainant, the complainant could not produce any cogent evidence. He even could not examine his own son Aakash Aggarwal, who had been present at that moment nor the complainant has lodged any report with the police/administration that the opposite party had misbehaved, humiliated and insulted the complainant and threatened with dire consequences, as alleged by the complainant, on 4.2.2015.

-7-

10. Resultantly we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any such allegation of misbehaviour against the opposite party.

11. Consequently we partly allow the complaint and the opposite party is directed to either replace the spectacles of the complainant with new one or to refund the price of the spectacles Rs. 350/-, to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

12. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

16.07.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)

/R/ Member Member