DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.117 of 4.5.2007 Decided on :14.6.2007 <br /> <br /> Parmod Kumar S/o Sh. Kulshashi Parkash, R/o C/o Parveen Garg, House No. 855, Gali No. 8, Ganesha Basti, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus <br /> Shanti Color Lab Digital Photo Shop, 4 Gole Diggi Market, The Mall, Bathinda through its Owner/Proprietor/Partner/Manager.<br /> ..... Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, Advocate<br /> For the opposite party : Sh. K.C. Bhanota, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to pay him Rs.2,00,000/- on account of loss of original VHS cassette of his marriage alongwith damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- due to deficiency in service; Rs.20,000/- as charges of preparation of the VHS and Rs.10,000/- as costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Factual matrix of the case as emanates from the complaint itself culminating into its filing may be stated as under :- <br /> Opposite party is doing the business under the name and style of Shanti Color Lab Digital Photo Shop, 4 Gole Diggi Market, The Mall, Bathinda. On 8.12.2006, one video film (VHS Cassette ) was given to it for its conversion into three CDs by way of charging Rs.300/-. Opposite party was approached by him many a times. Despite this, original VHS Cassette and three converted CDs were not given. It continued postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. He was apprised that original VHS Cassette is not available and search for it is being made. Ultimately, it refused to handover the VHS Cassette on account of which he has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. Since, it had sentimental values, its value was to continue enhancing with the passage of time. He had spent Rs.20,000/- for its preparation at the time of his marriage i.e. on 17.11.2003. He alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.<br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite party filed reply stating that complaint is not maintainable; complainant has not come with clean hands; intricate questions of law and facts are involved and as such, this Forum has got no jurisdiction; complaint is motivated and malafide and has been prepared with a pre-meditated mind under the expert guidance of some one to misuse the powers of this Forum. It claims that it is a renowned one in the field of colour photography, fair and honest dealing, dedicated and technical expertise in the field of photography in Bathinda. No cassette was handed over to it on 8.12.2006. Its Receptionist i.e. Surjit Singh @ Bunty was on duty throughout the working hours on 8.12.2006. Executed order of the complainant was fixed for delivery on 8.12.2006. Cassette was duplicate print of some entertainment material. It had tracking which rendered it unfit for conversion into CD. Complainant was called for 8.12.2006 at the Receptionist counter. Sh. Surjit Singh had apprised him about the condition of the cassette. To convince the complainant, Sh. Sofat S/o Sh. Money Ram had displayed the contents and condition of the cassette on computer screen. Complainant had realised that on account of inadvertence, he had brought wrong cassette. Accordingly, cassette was taken by him from Mr. Sofat in the presence of Sh. Surjit Singh on 8.12.2006. Thereafter, he had left the shop with promise to come within no time with the master print of the cassette as he was desiring conversion into CDs. Thereafter, he did not turn up for the job. No receipt was issued on 8.12.2006 nor cassette was received on that day. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Parmod Kumar complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1) and photocopy of receipt (Ex.C.2).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite party, reliance has been placed on the affidavits (Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2) of Sh. Hari Mohan, its Partner and affidavits of S/Sh. Sofat, Computer Attendant and Surjit Singh @ Bunty, Receptionist which are Ex.R.3 & Ex.R.4 respectively.<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 7. Mr. Garg learned counsel for the complainant urged that one video (VHS Cassette ) was given to the opposite party On 8.12.2006 for its conversion into CDs. Receipt, copy of which is Ex.C.2, was given. Neither the original VHS Cassette of the marriage of the complainant nor three converted CDs have been delivered by the opposite party. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. For this, he drew our attention to the affidavit of the complainant. <br /> 8. Mr. Bhanota, learned counsel for opposite party countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that no VHS cassette was delivered to the opposite party on 8.12.2006. Delivery for executed order of the complainant was fixed for 8.12.2006. Accordingly, complainant had come when he was apprised that cassette which was given by him was unfit for conversion as it was having trackings and this was displayed on computer screen by Mr. Sofat. At that time, Receptionist Surjit Singh @ Bunty and Mr. Sofat were present. Complainant had taken back that cassette with promise to come with the master print, but he did not turn up.<br /> 9. We have considered the rival arguments. Burden of proving deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it as has been held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & another-2000(1)CLT-33. Now question is as to whether the complainant has succeeded in discharging this burden in this case. The reply to our minds is in the negative. Affidavit of the complainant stands amply rebutted with the affidavits Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2 of Sh. Hari Mohan, Partner of the opposite party, who has reiterated version of the opposite party in the reply of the complaint and with the affidavits Ex.R.3 & Ex.R.4 of S/Sh. Sofat and Surjit Singh @ Bunty respectively. Copy of the receipt on which No.C2 5029 has been recorded, which has been produced by the complainant himself, supports the version of the opposite party. We have no hesitation in observing that it is not a receipt dated 8.12.2006. Only thing it reveals is that it is a document according to which VHS was given to the opposite party prior to its issuance for conversion into three CDs for Rs.300/- and date of delivery was 8.12.2006. Had the date of delivery been beyond 8.12.2006 on this document, some weight could be attached to the story of the complainant. As per this document, delivery was to be taken by the complainant on 8.12.2006. Accordingly, he came to the opposite party for delivery of the executed order. He was apprised by Mr. Surjit Singh @ Bunty that cassette handed over by him had tracks which rendered it unfit for conversion into CDs. Cassette was also displayed by Mr. Sofat on computer screen as per story of the opposite party and thereafter, it was taken back by the complainant with promise to come with original print. Thereafter, he did not come. This plea of the opposite party stands supported from the affidavits referred to above. It also gets strength from Ex.C.2. In the presence of abundant evidence to support the averments of the opposite party, bald affidavit of the complainant becomes incredible. Accordingly, conclusion is that complainant has failed to establish his version by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party can be said to have been proved.<br /> 10. In the premises written above, complaint is devoid of merits and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned. <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 14.6.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />