Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/229

Kunal Soffat - Complainant(s)

Versus

sukhdeep Electricals - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

23 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.229 of 06.04.2015

Date of Decision            :   23.11.2015 

 

Kunal Sofat, 57 Friends Colony, Pakhowal Road, Village Daad, Ludhiana.

 

….. Complainant

Versus

 

Sukhdeep Electricals, Opp Silver Oak Palace, Village Daad, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana-142022.

 

…Opposite party

                   

                    (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :         In person

For OP                           :         Ex-parte

 

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant Sh.Kunal Sofat filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter as referred as the ‘Act’) against the OP, by alleging that he availed services of OP for repair of faulty gas geyser on 3.12.2013. One Mr.Gurdeep Singh repaired the said geyser and thereafter, he fitted the same in the working condition. Rs.590/- were recovered as labour charges with the assurance that if any defect occurred within 6 months, then repair of the same will be done. However, gas geyser failed to work just after three days of the repair. As and when the complainant sent his servant for calling Mr.Gurdeep Singh, then he found the shop lying locked. On 4.5.2014 and 10.6.2014, complainant sent legal notices regarding harassment, but to no effect. Directions sought against Sukhdeep Electricals for refund of Rs.590/-. Even compensation for harassment is sought.

2.                Notice of the complaint(after revival of the same) was issued to the Op, who earlier appeared through proprietor, but later on, none appeared and that is why, OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.9.2015.

3.                In ex-parte evidence, complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CA and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                          Oral arguments of complainant heard. Records gone through minutely. 

5.                Only affidavit Ex.CA has been tendered in evidence and no other evidence is adduced. The bill of repair charges has not been produced, though, in the complaint, it is mentioned that receipt in that respect was issued by one Mr.Gurdeep Singh. Photo stat copy of that bill alone produced without exhibit. If the original bill of Rs.590/- issued by Gurdeep Singh available with the complainant, then non production of the same goads us to draw inference as if the same withheld deliberately. As and when the documents withheld deliberately, then by drawing adverse inference, it has to be held that said receipt may            not be genuine.

6.                After going through affidavit Ex.CA, it is only made out as if owner of OP concern deliberately has not appeared before this Forum, due to which, inference of cheating should be drawn. That inference legally is not draw able because complainant in ex-parte evidence has to prove his case by leading convincing evidence. Non appearance of a party alone does not give arise of cause of action for inferring that case of the complainant is proved. Though, complainant claims to have sent notices to OP by referring dates 4.5.2014 and 10.6.2014, but those legal notices have not been produced on record.  Even it is not        mentioned as to whether those legal notices sent through registered posts or through courier or by any other mode. In the absence of pleadings in that respect, it has to be inferred that such legal notices may not have been sent and that is why those have not been produced and nor postal receipts with respect to same have been produced. It has not been mentioned in the complaint or in the affidavit Ex.CA as to which part of the gas geyser was repaired for curing the fault and as to what fault subsequently surfaced. No report of expert has been produced for proving the deficiency in service on the part of OP. Report of the expert alone could have shown that repair of the geyser (if any) was not done properly. Complainant is not an expert in the line of repair of the geyser and as such, his sole statement cannot be believed that fault in the repaired geyser took place actually.  In case of Samuel Enterprises vs.Vanlazella -2015(I)CLT-181(MZ), it has been held that when no evidence in support of the complaint produced, then judgment by the District Forum cannot be passed just on the basis of purchased receipt of the alleged defective mobile. It is so because in case the defect in the mobile found without evidence, then findings will be unsustainable. Ratio of that case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case because here affidavit Ex.CA even do not support the claim of the complainant qua the defect in the geyser and nor the same shows as to who repaired the geyser. The type of alleged insufficiency in repairing the geyser have not been pointed out and as such, keeping in view  all these circumstances, complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP.

7.                As per law laid down in case Harbhajan Singh vs.Jhandu Kay Coop.Agri.Service Society Limited and others-2015(IV)CLT-92(N.C.), onus of proving the inferior quality of seeds or any other material irregularity or deficiency in service is on  the complainant. In case that deficiency in service not proved,    then complaint is liable to be dismissed. Same is the position in the case before us because here type of alleged carried out repair neither pointed out nor the defect in alleged repair pointed out at all.

8.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint merits dismissal and the same is hereby ex-parte dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules.

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

         

                                      (Sat Paul Garg)                            (G.K.Dhir)

                                   Member                                            President

Announced in Open Forum                                         

Dated:23.11.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.