1. The case of complainant is that in the first week of June, 2016, being motivated by O.P. for good quality of 916 hallmark category, he purchased one gold ring of 24 Carat for Rs. 20,000/- having weight of 91.6% of gold.  It is alleged that after he showed the said ring to his family member, who create doubt for the quality and weight of the said ring, as such on 06.06.2016, he got it tested at Nakoda Touch Lab. at Cuttack vide their receipt no. 0-8012 dated 06.06.2016 and found that the said gold ring does not belong to 916 hallmark category and the weight is 89.51% and Carat is 21.48.  It is also alleged that on contact with the O.P., who assured to refund the costs of alleged ring within short period, but till date not refunded the amount nor replaced the same.Thus showing deficiency in service, he filed the case praying to direct the O.P. to replace the alleged gold ring with accurate gold and to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
    
2. The O.P. appeared through his Ld. Counsel, who filed the counter version denying the allegations of complainant, has contended that the complainant is not a consumer under the O.P., as the O.P. has never sold any gold ring to the complainant, and the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint.  Further contended that the cause of action, if any, arose on 06.06.2016 when the complainant got tested the alleged gold ring at Nakoda Tounch Lab, but complainant has filed the present dispute after expiry of period of limitation of two years, as such the present dispute is not maintainable and with other contentions, he prayed to dismiss the case.
    
3. Complainant has filed copy of receipt vide S. No. 0-8012 dated 06.06.2016 issued by Nakoda Tounch Lab, whereas the O.P. has filed citations of Higher Forums.  Perused the case record and material documents available therein.
    
4. During hearing from the both parties, it is ascertained that the O.P. has raised two numbers of question for maintainability i.e. (i) Complainant is not a consumer and (ii) present dispute is barred by limitation.
    
5. In this context, we have gone through the record and ascertained that complainant has filed only one document which is related to the testing of alleged gold ring, but not filed any single document to prove that he has purchased the alleged gold ring from the O.P. so also the said receipt issued by Nakoda Tounch does not reflects anywhere the name of the O.P.  Though the A/R for complainant submits that the O.P. has not issued any bill or invoice against the alleged gold ring and the complainant on good faith and assurance of replacement, if any defects occurs and both parties belonged to same locality, has not obtained any bill from the O.P.Though the A/R for O.P. has challenged the same but to make it contrary, has not filed any documents like the bills raised or issued during such period i.e. first week of June, 2016.It is seen on many instances, that the retailers / shop keepers / business establishments are not raising bills to skip away themselves from paying tax.However, no party to the present dispute has filed any document to prove their submissions.Further we would like to make it clear that burden of proof lies on the complainant to prove his case and without cogent evidence, the submission of complainant cannot stand at this stage.Since no evidence is brought out by the complainant to prove his case, in our view, there is no prima facie case is established against the O.P. In this connection, we have gone through the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Nawal Kishore Kashyap Vrs Bihar State Housing Co-operative Federation Ltd & others, wherein it is held that “Complaint is liable to be dismissed if complainant is unable to make out even a prima facie case for consideration”
    
6. Further the second point raised by the A/R for O.P. is regarding period of Limitation.  It is ascertained from the record and submission of complainant is that he purchased the alleged gold ring in the first week of June 2016 and on doubt of good quality and quantity, he obtained the receipt of Nakoda Tounch dated 06.06.2016 to that effect, and whereas complainant filed the present case after lapse of four years i.e on 01.09.2020, which is barred by limitation as per Section 69 of the Act, 2019.  Hence it is observed that complainant not filed the present dispute within time period.  In this connection, A/R for O.P. draws our attentions towards several verdicts of Higher Forums to that effect.
    
7. Hence without any cogent evidence towards purchase of alleged gold ring from the O.P., we feel, the complainant has not come with proper evidence to prove his submissions.  Therefore, we do not think that the present case is a fit case for proceeding.  As such, we dismiss the case having no merits. 
                        
                                                                                                                  ORDER

Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the present case is dismissed against the O.P. having no merit.  No order as to costs.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 16^th day of March, 2021.  Issue free copies to the parties concerned.