Complainant, Sucha Singh (a land-owner agriculturist) vides the present complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter, for short the Act, has sought necessary orders to the opposite party vendor Navneet Singh (for short the OP to refund him back the receipted advance of Rs.2,00,000/- (with 18% PA interest from its date of receipt) besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation since he (the OP) has failed to supply/deliver him the Straw Reaper duly booked on 13.01.2015 to be supplied (as promised) by 30.03.2015 for a total sum consideration of Rs.2,30,000/-.

2. We find that the complainant alleges that the OP (engaged in manufacture & supply of agricultural implements) visited the complainant’s village (on business tour) on 13.01.2015 when the complainant placed upon him (the OP) a purchase order to supply one ‘56’Straw Reaper for Rs.2.30 Lac paying him an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash (against receipt). On 19.01.2015, the complainant paid another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the OP through NEFT transfer from his SB A/c with Central Bank of India, Kalanaur (Gurdaspur, Punjab). It has been lastly alleged that the OP failed to supply/ deliver the sold/ booked/promised ‘56’Straw Reaper in spite of the various requests/reminders (even the final legal notice) and thus prompted the present complaint.

3. The titled opposite party Navneet Singh was summoned vides the registered notice (not received back undelivered) presumed to have been duly served upon the OP who however preferred to stay absent and thus was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide the forum’s orders dated 19.09.2016.

4. The complainant in evidence and to support his allegations has produced his own affidavit Ex.CW1 along with the affidavit Ex.CW2 of his uncle Panch Khazan Singh duly deposing the contents of the allegations as made out in the instant complaint and other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4.

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 despite the duly served summons and was thus ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte vide the forum’s orders dated 19.09.2016. 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/reliable evidence in the form of Sale/Purchase Agreement, Performa invoice, Invoice, Advance Paid Receipt and/or any other reliable document etc in the absence of which the lone affidavits Ex.CW1 & Ex.CW2 and legal notice Ex.C3/postal receipt Ex.C4 do not amount to more than mere ‘bald’ statements. It is also not understood as to why advance/NEFT payments were made to the OP vendor in case the complainant did not approve of the genuineness of the OP and capacity to supply quality/quantity goods in accordance with the booked orders etc. In the absence of any documentary evidence in affirmative of the alleged purchase orders/work-orders and its supply etc even the statutory consumer relationship does not get proved for any furtherance in the matter. We find that the lone document produced in evidence of the supply/sale/purchase of the ‘56’Straw Reaper i.e., document Ex.C1 is the general Bill Form (common stationary item) not even with vendor’s name printed over it and hand filled (date 13.01.2015) cell nos etc drawn in the name of complainant Sucha Singh for an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- with the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to be received through Bank on 16.01.2015 and the unpaid balance staying back at Rs.1,30,000/-; thus the allegation claiming payment of cash advance of Rs.1,00,000/- remains ‘not proved. Further, no such document/evidence stands produced on record proceedings that proves (beyond all reasonable doubts) that ‘Navneet Singh’ the titled opposite party deals in the manufacture & supply of agricultural implements and it was indeed he who had booked the instant supply-order. There has been no mention of any subsequent personal contact/meeting (or even telephone talk) of the complainant with the OP and that ‘disproves’ the allegation that he had been regularly visiting the Gurdapur villages to sell/promote his products etc. Even his reported address does not get verified on records through some cogent documentary evidence. Lastly, the complainant’s statement of his Bank A/c (Ex.C2) does prove the alleged NEFT transfer of Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.01.2015 to one Navneet Singh but the purpose of ‘transfer’ and ‘identity’ of transferee does not get validly corroborated as per the evidence available on the records. Moreover, as per the ‘scribbling’ on the reverse of Bill Form (Ex.C1), the Bank & A/c no. of the opposite party Navneet Singh are different from that on the (Ex.C2) A/c statement entry of 19.01.2015. Also, cuttings/writings on Ex.C1’s reverse show advance/balance etc in variance with the alleged figures depriving the complaint of its authenticity, the first pre-requisite to win a favorable statutory award.

7. In the light of the all above, we find that the present complainant has somehow failed to prove his leveled out allegations on the record proceedings and that has bereft the instant complaint of all statutory merit under the applicable provisions of the Act and thus we 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.

8. 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)

NOV. 24, 2016                                                             Member.

*YP*