IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

Dated this 29^th day of July 2016

Complaint No. 228/2015

Present:               1)     Shri.B.V.Gudli, President                                          2)         Smt. S.S. Kadrollimath,     Member

                        3)     Shri. V.S. Gotakhindi,       Member

-***-

Complainant:      Mr. Ram Parashuram Ghorpade, 

Age: 35years, Occ: Legal Practitioner,

                             R/o. C/o: H.No.1511, Ganeshpur Galli,

Shahapur, Belagavi.

(By Sri. M.M.Shaikh, Advocate)

V/s.

Opponents:         Paramanand B. Gulbani,

                             Age: Major, Occ: Business,

Ambica Cloth Stores,

491/92, Khade Bazar,

Shahapur, Belagavi.

                             ( By Sri.S.B.Shaikh, Advocate)

 (Order dictated by Sri.B.V.Gudli, President)

ORDER

          U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency, for non replacement of the defective trouser with touser  of good quality or to refund its money.

          2) Notice was served to O.P. and appointed his Advocate. OP has not filed his objections to main petition.

          3) In support of the claim of the complaint, the complainant has not filed affidavit but produced some documents.

4) We have heard the arguments of the complainant and O.Ps. and have perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency on the part of O.P & entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is partly in negative, for the following reasons.

REASONS

          7) The complainant has purchased  one trouser worth Rs.910/- and T shirt worth Rs.755/- from the opponent shop. But the trouser purchased lost its colour in its first wash. There were white patches and marks found on the trouser. The complainant approached the OP within 15 days and requested to change or refund the money paid to the trouser. The OP did not heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant handed over the trouse to OP. The OP got the Trouser washed from his sources and handed over the same to complainant. The complainant found there were no changes and white patches were still existing on the trouser. Thereafter the complainant issued legal notice to OP on 09.01.2015 calling upon him to exchange the trouser of refund the money paid by him. The notice was delivered to OP but did not bothered to reply.   Hence the complainant constrained to file this complaint.

8) The complainant filed this complaint for deficiency of service on the part of OP. The OP has failed to file objections to the main petition and produce evidence affidavit. The complainant also not produced evidence affidavit. Mere allegation is not sufficient to prove deficiency of service on the part of OP. Complainant failed to prove the contents of complaint through evidence. The complainant failed to prove deficiency on the part of OP. There are no grounds to allow the complaint. Considering the facts and material on record, at this stage, the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Hence we answer the point in Negative. Accordingly following order;

ORDER

          The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 29^th day of July 2016)

          Member                Member                          President.

msr*