Present complaint has been filed by Gurmeet Singh against Raghu Kansra Nischal Enterprises Workshop Machinery pleading that he purchased two new Generators from the opposite party on 4.1.2014 and 5.3.2014 of 750 KW and paid Rs.66,000/- in cash as full and final payment. He purchased these generators one for his house and one for electricity for agriculture purpose. The opposite party had given one year warranty. The generator purchased on 4.1.2014 went out of working order on 5.6.2014 and the generator purchased on 5.3.2014 also went out of working order on 16.6.2014. He brought these generator sets to the firm of the opposite party but the opposite party carried out some minor repairs and returned the same but after installation, the generator set stopped working again only after about 10 days. Thereafter, he again handed over both the generators to the opposite party at his firm for repair, but till today the opposite party has not repaired the same despite the fact that both the generators are lying in his shop since long. He had been approaching the opposite party and requesting to do needful into the matter, but of no use. He served a registered AD notice dated 10.4.2015 through his counsel to the opposite party calling upon him to supply new generators or to refund full price of the same i.e. Rs.66,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of purchase till actual realization within a period of 15 days from the receipt of this notice but the opposite party instead of taking any action into the matter, given a fabricated and unsatisfactory reply to the notice. He lastly prayed that opposite party be directed to replace both the defective generator sets with new and defect free generators set or to refund of Rs.66,000/- i.e price of he generators with interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of payment till actual realization. Opposite party be also directed to pay Rs.29,000/- as compensation to him on account of mental agony, physical harassment, financial loss caused by the opposite party on account of deficiency in service alongwith Rs.4,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through its counsel and filed its written version taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party as no transaction between the parties as alleged took place; the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint and the complaint is hopelessly barred by time. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant is doing the business to give on hire the Generators to different persons on various occasions such as marriages and other functions etc and the complainant used to repair Generators from the opposite party from time to time and the spare parts of the Generators were damaged due to the ruthless use by the persons to whom the complainant gave the same on hire basis. The opposite party further submitted that the complainant had refused to pay the labour charges to the opposite party to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and hence the opposite party refused to get the same repaired without making previous dues and the complainant had issued the notice to the opposite party with ulterior and pre-planned and malafide motive only to illegally grab the amount from the opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

3.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1 and of Manjinder Singh Ex.CW-2, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. 

4.       Sh.Raghu Kansra, Nischal Enterprises tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.OP1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.

5.     We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back-drop of the statutory merit of the evidence/documents as duly produced by the contesting litigants in order to judiciously adjudicate the present complaint under the applicable C P Act’ 1986.

6.     We find that the complainant Gurmeet Singh has failed to prove the alleged purchase of the 2 nos. of New Generators Sets for Rs.66,000/- (from the opposite party vendor Raghu Kansra on 04.01.2014 and 05.03.2014, respectively); through some cogent evidence such as Bill/Invoice/Payment Cheque etc. Simply, the two nos. of affidavits, one by the complainant and other by one Manjinder Singh do not prove a commercial transaction of a substantial amount of Rs.66,000/-. It does not even prove on records that the opposite party is engaged in the sale of new Generator Sets etc and even the alleged delivery for repair of the two nos. of Generator Sets to Raghu Kansra (the OP vendor) could not be proved. The exhibits Ex.C1, Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 neither convey anything meaningful nor prove anything worth the name. Under the prevalent conditions, even the exchange of legal notices Ex.C4 & Ex.C5 get cornered meaninglessly, in isolation.

7.       At the face of failure of the complainant to prove the allegations as made out in his complaint, the opposite party had little rather nothing much to rebut and his lone affidavit Ex.OP1 assisted by the reply legal notice Ex.OP2 have served the purpose well.

8.     In the light of the all above, we do not find any statutory merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no order as to its costs.    

9.      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)

May,05 2016                                                                     Member

*MK*