The complainant’s case in a nutshell is that the complainant purchased some articles one Samsung Window Air Conditioner, A.O.C. LED Television , Whirlpool 175 ltr. Fridge of Cheri colour 2^nd hand from the OP on 15.9.2013. The complainant also bought one piece of Samsung Split Air Conditioner machine of 1.5 Ton amounting to Rs.17,000/- from the oP on 19.9.2013. Complainant filed Annexure I showing the purchase of those articles total price Rs.32,500/-. The oP told to make instalment arrangement of above stated household goods . But the Op did not install the household goods in the  house of the complainant. On 18.5.2015 complainant gave paid Rs.2,000/- to the father of the oP for installation charges but nor Op nor his father completed the installation. Hence , this case for Op’s harassment by not installing the household articles.

            Op has appeared and filed WV denying inter alia all the material allegations . It is the case of the oP that all the household articles are 2^nd hand and in case of second hand articles service charge are required for installation. Op admitted the payment for the price of the those articles by cheque. The complainant requested the Op for making installation and to give charge required for installation. OP appointed his father for installation but after starting of work the father of the OP died in course of installation of those articles in the house of the complainant. Hence, Op prays for dismissal of the case.

            Complainant filed some documents. Annexure I, Annexure II, Annexure III, Annexure IV. Op did not file any document.

                                                            POINT FOR DECISION

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

DECISION WITH REASONS :

Point no.1

            The complainant purchased those 2^nd hand  household articles  from the oP’s shop by paying price for his own use. So , complainant is a consumer.

Point no.2 &3

            It is admitted position that complainant purchased those articles. Payment was made by cash and cheque for which Annexure I and Annexure II have been filed. But those Annexure I and II has not been proved by complainant. The complainant has filed Xerox copy of Annexure I

but the complainant did not produce original copy of Annexure I, II and III. There is no dispute with the price of the articles. There is no dispute of not payment of price. The complainant got delivery of those articles . But dispute arose with the Annexure 3. Annexure 3 shows that the OP gave written promise to install those machine without any charge, signed by Susanta Chatterjee, dated 17.5.2014. Those Annexure have been written on 15.9.2013, 19.9.2015, 5.10.2013 finally the Annexure III was written and signed on 17.45.2014. But these annexure are all Xerox copy. The complainant did not file the original copy. The copy did not prove that those writings and signatures was made by Susanta Chatterjee because in the Xerox copy of cash memo there is only initial signature and signature of the xeorx  copy of Annexure 2 and 3. Accordingly, for want of original copy and want of adequate documentary evidence we are refraining ourselves from giving reliance upon those Xerox copy of Annexures 2,2 and 3,3.

            Moreover, it appears that the oP took initiative for installation by appointing his father to complete installation work of household articles mentioned hereinbefore. But the father of the Op died. Accordingly, after going through the material on record and documents attempted to be adduced by complainant , it appears that the complainant has come forward before this Forum with uncleaned hand with dispute of Rs.2000/-. Moreover Annexure 3 or other documents has not been proved by the complainant by legal means . According, considering the nature of allegation and nature of documents , we are of opinion that complainant fails to prove his allegation against OP , whereas OP appointed his father for installation work . As such, there is no deficiency on the part of the oP. So the point 2 and 3 goes against the complainant. Accordingly after deliberation over the materials before us we pass the following order. Hence-

                                                            Ordered

            That the CC no. 145 of 2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest  but without any cost.

            Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.