DATE OF DISPOSAL: 30.01.2024

PER:   SMT. SARITRI PATTANAIK, MEMBER (W)

            The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties  (in short O.Ps.) for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.

            2. The complainant is a self-employed and for use in his home, he purchased a mosquito bat from the O.P.No.2 for Rs.220.00 on 12.05.2020 but no bill issued. After couple of days of using, the said new bat stopped functioning. The complainant asked to the O.P.No.2 regarding not functioning of the bat, the O.P.No.2 advised to the complainant to consult with the O.P.No.1. Accordingly the complainant consulted with the O.P.No.1 and the O.P.No.1 changed the battery of the said new bat and charged Rs.50/- for the battery and the complainant paid the same but did not handed over the appropriate GST bill to the complainant on demand. When the said bat as per instruction of the O.P.No.1 plugged for charging, the battery did not function again. The complainant very next date again approached to the O.P.No.1 and complaint about it and the O.P.No.1 started misbehaving to the complainant in his service centre premises in front of other customers and kept the new mosquito bat with him. To save from mosquito, complainant again approached to the O.P.No.1 to repair another old mosquito bat and again the O.P. not changed the battery with duplicate battery like previous one. To settle the grievance of the complainant, the Consumer Counseling Centre, Ganjam at Berhampur issued a notice for conciliation but the O.P.No.1 refused the same. Even the complainant along with one Sri K.Ramesh Kumar both have also visited the O.P.No.1 shop as per advice of the consumer Counseling Center, Ganjam at Berhampur but the O.P No.1 again misbehaved both of them. The very act of the O.Ps as mentioned above are constituted deficiency in services and unfair trade practice. The complainant is suffering from irreparable agonies mentally, physically and financially since the date of first approach. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to replace the duplicate battery with new and original battery and/or replace the defective mosquito bat, compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1500/- in the best interests of justice.

            3. Considering the submission of the Complainant, the Commission admitted the case and issued notice to both the opposite parties.

4. Duly acknowledging the notice, both the opposite parties appeared in the Commission. The O.P.No.2 filed written version only. It is stated that the complainant has not purchased any mosquito bat from O.P.No.2 and question is giving advice to the complainant to approach the O.P.No.1 does not arise. The complainant never approaches at the shop of the O.P.No.2 to purchase the mosquito bat in question. Why the complainant drag this party before this Hon’ble Commission into this litigation and the reason best known to him. The complainant has to prove regarding purchase of alleged mosquito bat from the O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.2 has issued genuine bills to the different customers on dated 12.05.2020 those have purchased items on the said date. Four numbers of bills issued to different customers is furnished as Annexure 1 to IV before the Commission for kind perusal. Hence, not issuing the bills to the customer by this O.P.No.2 in question, dies not arise.  The complainant has filed this complaint against this O.P.No.2 without any proof and evidence and to harass him in ill intention to obtain monetary benefit only. As the O.P.No.2 has no fault in this case, the present disputes as brought against the O.P.No.2 is not maintainable in the eye of law and may please be dropped with exemplary cost.

            4. On the date of hearing the advocate for complainant is present and the opposite parties did not represent their case. The Commission heard and perused the complaint, written version of O.P.No.2, evidence, etc.

            In the instant case, the opposite party no.1 remained silence over the issues of the complaint. The legal principle is that "silence may sometimes amount to admission" of fact. In Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja (2003):- This case dealt with customs duty evasion, and the Supreme Court observed that when a person, upon questioning, fails to provide any explanation or response, it can be inferred that they do not have any valid explanation, and their silence can be used against them. Further it establishes a presumption that when evidence is deliberately suppressed by a party, the court may presume that such evidence, if produced, would be unfavorable to that party.

            Resultantly, in view of the above principle of laws, the Commission allowed the complaint on contest against the opposite party No.1 and dismissed against the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 is directed to supply a new original battery with bill and warranty card for the mosquito bat together with pay compensation of Rs.1500/- along with litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the Order. In the event of non-compliance of the above order, the complainant is at liberty to recover all the above dues from the opposite party No.1 which shall carry 12% pa from the date of filling of the case i.e., 11.01.2021 in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 30.01.2024