(Order dictated by Shri. B.V.Gudli, President)
:ORDER:
The complainant has filed complaint against Opponent U/s.12 of C.P. Act alleging deficiency in service of non replacement of Door Alarm set fixed to complainant house.
2) Opponent appeared through counsel and filed his objection.
3) In support of the claim of the complainant, the complainant has produced certain documents. On the other hand O.P. has filed objection and no documents are produced.
4) We have taken the argument of complainant and opponent has heard and perused the records.
5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complaint has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opponent and entitle to the reliefs sough?
6) Our finding on the point is partly in negative, for the following reasons.
:: REASONS ::
7) The complainant has filed complaint alleging deficiency in service against the opponent for non replacement of Door Alarm fixed to his house. The complainant further alleges that the opponent is the businessman running the business of electronics goods and complainant to keep his house safe approached the opponent on 18/4/2012 and the opponent gave quotation estimating to fixed the Alarm to the door for a sum of Rs.25,287/- and the complainant requested for the receipt and the opponent stated that there will be use amount of VAT to be paid to be government and to avoid the tax the opponent reduce the bill amount. The complainant further alleges that on 18/4/2012 complainant purchased the Alarm material such as one penal, one drill, 4 door sensors, one remote and 2 hooter by paying money under invoice No.075 dated 18/4/2012 and the opponent fixed the Alarm to the complainant house and said that if the Alarm does not work properly the opponent will replace the same. The complainant further alleges that as the Alarm was not working properly, approached the opponent requesting to replace the same but the opponent did not replace by giving one or the other reason. The complainant further alleges that from the date of purchase of goods the same is defective and opponent knowing well did not repair the same and there is deficiency of service on the part of the opponent. The complainant further alleges that on 26/3/2013 issued legal notice requesting to replace the Alarm set and on 2/4/2013 the notice was served but the opponent did not replied. No alternative then to approach the Hon’ble Forum for the remedy. Praying to allow the complaint as prayed.
8) The opponent filed the objection denying allegations and made by the complainant contending that, the complainant approached the opponent on 18/4/2012 but it is false to say that opponent issued quotation for Rs.25,287/- for the Alarm set and reduced the amount in the Invoice to save the tax. The opponent further contends that the complainant has purchased the Alarm set from the opponent shop on 18/4/2012 for amount of Rs.11,400/- and not for Rs.25,287/-. The opponent further contends that the allegations made by the complainant is false to say that the Alarm set is not working properly and also false that the complainant approached opponent several times for repair and replacement and the material is defective one. The opponent further contends that the allegations made by the complainant is that just to harass the opponent and the legal notice is not served to the opponent etc., and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
9) The complainant has produced the documents such as Tax Invoice issued by the opponent, the copy of legal notice, the postal acknowledgements and postal receipt. There is no documents filed by the opponent in their defence. Now point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of opponent? Before considering the above point it is pertaining to note that, though the complainant has filed the complaint in form of pleadings and the opponent filed their objection to the complaint, both the complainant and opponent have failed to produce evidence affidavit to prove their respective dispute and claims. According to the Hon’ble National Commission it is mandatory to file evidence affidavit in support of the pleadings pleaded by the complainant in this complaint. It is to be noted that, in the case on hand both the opponent and complainant have not filed their evidence affidavit. Hence the complaint of the complainant according to the provisions of C.P. Act the complaint is not maintainable unless there is evidence to the effect of the claim of the complainant.
10) Accordingly, following order.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 10th day of May 2016)
Member Member President
gm*
