RAVEL SINGH filed a consumer case on 30 Mar 2016 against SUNIL KUMAR PROP M/S HITECT ELECTRONICS, in the Ambala Consumer Court. The case no is CC/237/2013 and the judgment uploaded on 31 Mar 2016.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.
Complaint Case No. : 237 of 2013
Date of Institution : 12.09.2013
Date of Decision : 30.03.2016
Ravel Singh R/o H.No.36/12, Vashisht Nagar, Ambala Cantt.
……Complainant.
Versus
Sunil Kumar Prop. of M/s Hitech Electronics, 410-411, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.
……Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
CORAM: SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.
SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. S.K. Maken, Adv. counsel for complainant.
Ops exparte.
ORDER.
Present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Act’) has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that he purchased one IFB Washing Machine of LG company, Model P9561R3F, One Micro Wave Oven of IFB Company Model 2SPG2S, One Geyser of Kenstar Model KGS-15WSM2012 from OP on 01.11.2012 in a sum of Rs.15,400/-, Rs.8800/-, Rs.5000/- respectively on installment basis i.e. in total Rs.29200/- + Rs.300/- as loan file charges. The complainant paid a down payment of Rs.9500/- vide receipt No.163 dated 01.11.2012 and for the balance amount of Rs.20,000/-, the complainant gave eight cheques of Rs.2500/- each to OP. It has been further alleged that the OP did not issued any separate bill of the above items despite repeated requests by the complainant and thereafter, the complainant enquired from the market qua rates of the abovesaid items which were found less in comparison to OP and thus the OP has charged Rs.6200/- in excess from the complainant which caused great mental harassment, agony and monetary loss to the complainant. Hence the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause has been preferred by the complainant before the Forum.
2. Upon notice, OP did not bother to appear before the Forum despite service through registered post. As such, he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.11.2013.
3. To prove his contention, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexure C1 (Receipt of Rs.9500/-), Annexure C-2 (legal notice), Annexure C-3 & C-4 (postal receipt & A.D of legal notice) and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the complainant’s counsel and perused the record very carefully. The main grouse of the complainant against the OP is that the products purchased from the OP on installments were sold by OP at high rates whereas the market price of the same were very low and thus complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.6200/-. But to prove this contention that the prevailing market rates of the products in question were low in comparison to the rates charged by the OP, complainant has not produced any document on record wherefrom the version of complainant can be believed. Annexure C-1 is the receipt qua purchase of the products by complainant but it does not prove that the prices were charged at higher side by the OP and thus the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced:30.03.2016 Sd/-
(A.K. SARDANA)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.