Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                  The case  of the complainant, in nutshell  is that  the complainant had  gone with the vehicle to the OP for repairing   as per  estimate  and he paid Rs.70,000/-  and left the vehicle there. The vehicle  was left before the OP  but  the OP did not issue the money receipt even if  received the money. Several  time complainant requested the OP to refund  Rs.70,000/-   towards repairing cost   and the OP  has denied to have received the money from the complainant. Hence, the complaint.

4.               The OP filed  the written version refuting  the allegation made by the complainant. They  submitted that they have  got the vehicle   but  no expenditure  has been incurred by the complainant  for repairing the vehicle. On the otherhand the OP denied to have received any money from the complainant.   They submitted that  the vehicle was duly inspected by the OP   and the complainant assured to give money receipt of Rs.70,000/- towards repairing of the vehicle but the complainant did not  give the money receipt and  the case has been falsely filed by him. Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on their part.

5.        After hearing  both the parties, learned
District Forum   has passed the following order:-

                      Xxxx         xxxxx           xxxxxxx

                      “The Ops are  directed to repair the vehicle in  presence of the complainant and delivered the same to the complainant within thirty days of receipt of this order. The complainant is also directed  to pay the rest amount of the repair vehicle to the Opp.Party after repair of the vehicle. There shall be no order as to costs and compensation. Parties to bear their own cost.”

6.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering  the written version filed by the OP with proper perspectives. According to him, no money receipt was  filed by the complainant to show payment of money to the OP. It is settled in law that  the complainant has to prove the case. When there is no money paid, the question of refund of money does not arise at all. Learned District Forum  failed to appreciate the facts and law.  Therefore,  he submitted that the impugned order should be set-aside  by allowing the appeal.

7.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order .

8.                   It is settled in law that the complainant has to prove that he is a consumer  and there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In this case the complainant   has not produced  any money receipt or affidavit or any  kind of paper to show that the payment of consideration was paid  to the OP for availing service. Thus, the complainant  has failed to   prove the payment  of consideration  as per Section-2(d) of the Act. The OP filed affidavit alongwith the copy of the  job card. According to the job card  the cost of the repairing of the vehicle was estimated at Rs.70,000/- if not money receipt.  So, the OP has proved  his plea   that no money was paid  as  estimated for  repairing the vehicle.

9.           In view of aforesaid analysis  we are of the views that  learned District Forum has failed to appreciate  the fact and law involved in this case.  Hence, the impugned order is set-aside and it is set-aside.

               Appeal stands allowed. No cost.

                Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                DFR be sent back forthwith.