BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                          Complaint No.: 165 of 2016.

                                                         Date of Institution: 04.08.2016.

                                                          Date of Order: 20.02.2019.

Amar Singh son of Shri Sheo Chand, resident of village Gurera, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani.

                                                                   …..Complainant.

                    Versus

Partap Singh, Proprietor National Electric Co., Gurera Road, near old State Bank, Siwani Mandi, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani.

…...Opposite Party.

                   COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                   THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Member.

Present:       Shri K. L. Ralia, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Hitender Panwar, proxy Advocate for the OP.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

                   Brief fact of the case are that the complainant on 18.6.2015 has purchased one Tata Solar Plate 200 watt @ Rs.85/- per Watt amounting to Rs.17,000/- from OP and the OP has issued bill on his letter pad with 5 years warranty.  It is alleged that when complainant demanded valid bill from the OP, OP stated that the bill book has been out of stock and within 5-7 days new bill book will be available and he will give the bill mentioning purchase date 18.6.2015, amount and all details pertaining to solar plate.  It is further alleged that on asking by the complainant that he has not mentioned the amount of Rs.17000/- on letter pad, the OP replied that he has mentioned date and put his signature on it and he further stated that complainant must believe him that he will mention everything in valid bill.  It is further alleged that after 4 days, complainant visited OP’s shop and complained him that solar plate is not charging battery, upon this OP told to complainant that you have to pay Rs.200/- as visit charge, complainant paid the same to the OP and OP took solar plate with him.  It is further alleged that after waiting for 10 days complainant met the OP and demanded the original bill, but the OP again told that new bill book is not available and assured that he will inform the complainant as and when it will be available.  It is further alleged that the solar plate become defective for 4 times and the OP has charged Rs.200/- as visiting charges every time.  It is further alleged that in May 2016 the OP asked to pay Rs.3000/- for issuance of pucca bill from another shop.  It is further alleged that on the objection of the complainant, the OP started abusing.  It is further alleged that the complainant has got served a legal notice No.407/2016 dated 20.5.2016 (by mistake year mentioned as 2015) and the OP has replied legal notice and also provided a photocopy of complaint given by complainant to SDM, Siwani, diary No.441 dated 21.4.2016.  It is further alleged that the contents of reply to the legal notice are wrong, false and the OP has made a concocted story.  It is further alleged that the complainant has purchased new solar plate from OP’s shop and not old solar plate from Chanderpal son of Shri Ganga Ram, as alleged by the OP.  It is further alleged that the complainant is not educated and he got written application from a boy and that boy wrongly written Rs. 7000/- instead of Rs.17,000/-, which is a clerical mistake.  It is further alleged that when the complainant came to know about this mistake, he moved an application diary No.68 dated 19.7.2016 to SDM, Siwani for rectification of wrongly mentioned amount.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                On appearance, OP filed contested written statement and took preliminary objections qua locus-standi; cause of action; maintainability; jurisdiction; estoppel; non-joinder and time barred.  On merits, it is alleged that OP never sold the solar plate to complainant and never received Rs.17,000/-.  It is further alleged that the OP is not having any electric shop of his own and he is an electrician and doing electric & instruments repairing work in National Electronic Company and in other shops of electric too.  It is further alleged that complainant told the OP to help him in arranging the old solar plates and on this the OP had purchased old solar plates from Chanderpal son of Shri Ganga Ram, resident of Dhani Kishan Lal and gave it to complainant for a sum of Rs.6000/- and Rs.1000/- was settled as labour charges of OP, so in total amount Rs.7000/-.  It is further alleged that the complainant had paid Rs.3000/- to Chanderpal and for remaining Rs.3000/- the OP was held responsible to recover from complainant and pays to Chanderpal as and when complainant paid it to OP.  It is further alleged that in that way the complainant is held liable to pay Rs.4000/- towards OP, which the complainant did not pay, even on several requests made by OP and turn down the requests on one pretext or the other.  It is further alleged that when the solar plates got defected, complainant came to OP and asked for the repair of the same, but OP not repaired it, as Rs.4000/- outstanding against the complainant and he not paid the same.  It is further alleged that the OP told the complainant to pay the outstanding amount if he wants to get repair the solar plates from OP and also pay the service charges, if any.  It is further alleged that the complainant had not purchased new solar plates, in fact old solar plates were arranged, so OP gave him free five years guarantee for repairing of solar plates without any labour charges.  It is further alleged that the complainant also filed a complaint before the SDM, Siwani, in which he admit the amount of claim as Rs.7000/- and not Rs.17,000/-.  It is further alleged that in these circumstances there is no fault on the part of the OP and it is the complainant himself who is short tempered, greedy and quarrelsome person and wants to fulfill his demand by pressuring the OP on false facts and in lieu of false litigations.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant to prove his case placed on record the duly sworn affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Annexure C1 to C6 and closed the evidence. 

4.                 The OP in support of its case has placed on record duly sworn affidavit as Mark-A alongwith documents Annexure R1 to R3.

5.                We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties at length and gone through the case file very carefully.

6.                After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal, as he has miserably failed to bring any cogent & convincing evidence to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  It is admitted by the OP that the complainant has purchased one old solar plate through OP.  It is also admitted fact that the complainant has moved an application before the SDM, Siwani mentioning the rate of the solar plate as Rs.7000/-.  The sole contention of the complainant is that the rate of solar plate has been written as Rs.7000/- instead of Rs. 17,000/- due to some clerical mistake and the said solar plate has become defective after 4 days from date of its installation but the OP did not repair the same despite several requests. This plea is not tenable at all, because complainant has not placed on record any cogent and convincing evidence to prove this fact.  The complainant has miserably failed to produce on record any evidence to prove that he purchased the new solar plate for Rs.17,000/-. It is the primary duty of complainant to place such evidence to prove the same but he miserably failed to do so. On the other hand, the OP has clearly proved on record that after the reply of legal notice given by OP, the complainant has taken the plea that the rate of solar plate has been written as Rs.7000/- instead of Rs. 17,000/- due to some clerical mistake.  The complainant has placed on record photostat copy of bill dated 18.06.2015 showing 1 Plate 200 Watt. We have minutely and carefully perused the bill produced by the complainant, in which it has been mentioned that complainant has purchased one Plate of 200 Watt from National Electric Company.

          Therefore, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, the complainant has miserably failed to bring any convincing and cogent evidence to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Therefore, in view of above circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Certified copies of order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.    

Announced in open Forum.

20.02.2019.

(Renu Chaudhary)         (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                        Member.                         President,

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.