Complainant Naresh Kumar has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite party praying that opposite party may kindly be directed to deliver the amount of Rs.2,000/- along with interest and also be directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment & mental agony suffered by the complainant at the hands of opposite party including Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.   

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that on 04.08.2017 complainant visited the shop of M/s. Sham Boot House Main Bazar Near Nalke Wala Chowk, Dinanagar Tehsil & District Gurdaspur and purchased the sports shoes for a consideration of Rs.700/- and paid the same to the opposite party and asked the opposite party regarding receipt of bill for the purchase of sports shoes who assured that the sports shoes constructed by brand company and if any problem will be created then opposite shall be responsible. It was further pleaded that complainant checked the shoes in his house and found that the same was defective and next day complainant approached the opposite party who told that shoes cannot be changed and also not delivered the payment. It was also pleaded that complainant visited the showroom of the opposite party number of times and requested them but the opposite party lingering the matter and did not give any heed to the request of the complainant. Complainant got the service of the opposite party and as such he is the consumer of the opposite party. It was next pleaded that complainant paid the entire amount of sports shoes but the opposite party did not agree to change the same till date and as such there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite party. Earlier, Sh.Ashok Bal Advocate had appeared on behalf of opposite party but after appearance he failed to appear on two dates of hearings and did not file the written reply on behalf of opposite party and as such opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.11.2017. After exparte proceedings Sh.Ashok Bal Advocate again appeared on behalf of opposite party and joined the proceedings of this case at the stage of evidence by moving the application on 18.12.2017.

4.       Complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 and affidavit of Sh.Manjit Kumar Ex.C2 and closed his evidence.

5.       Sh.Sham Lal Prop. of the opposite party had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 and affidavit of Sh.Suraj Parkash Ex.OP-2 and closed his evidence.

6.       We find that the present complainant has failed to prove the purchase of shoes from opposite party as NO Bill or receipt has been placed on record by the complainant. Moreover, it is crystal clear from the contents of Ex.OP-1 affidavit of Sham Lal that there is no shop in the name of “Sham Boot House” and the name of alleged shop is “Style Footwear”. The opposite party has further contended that complainant never purchased shoes from their shop and have denied the relationship of seller-consumer between them.

7.       So in the light of complainant having filed a complaint against wrong party and having further failed to place on record cogent evidence of alleged deficiency in service, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and hence the same is hereby dismissed being without merit. No order as to costs.

8.       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)

APRIL 06, 2018.                                                                    Member               

*YP*