Parties are absent on call. It reveals from the previous order that complainant is remaining absent on the date fixed for hearing .However, in view of Sec 38(3)(c) of C.P Act 2019 the case record taken up today to decide the complaint on merit. Perused the material available on record . Complainant has raised deficiency of service on the part of O.ps for demanding excess amount than the price of the finance vehicle.

As per section 38 (6) of C.P Act. 2019 every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record, as such it casts on obligation on the Dist Commission to decide the complaint on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complaint and the service provider /Seller irrespective of whether the service provider adduced evidence or not. The decision of the District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant. The onus thus is on the making allegation. Here in this case the complainant has not adduced any evidence on affidavit or the averment of complaint petition is either supported by affidavit of the complainant. Hence, we are of our opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of O.ps. .Hence, complaint petition is rejected on contest against the O.Ps. However, no order as to cost.