O R D E R
K.S. MOHI , PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed present complaint against O.P under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant had purchased two electric locks on 28.11.2014 for sum of Rs.2500/- from the OP. It is alleged that on 29.11.2014, the complainant noticed that one electric lock was not functioning properly and the complainant approached to the OP for repair or replace the same. It is alleged that the engineer of OP examined the product and said that it’s a minor problem and the product was handed over to the OP for repairs. It is alleged that on 1.12.2014 when the complainant visited the premises of OP, to collect the product, engineer of OP said that the coil has burnt and the product could not be repaired now. It is alleged that without using the product by the complainant, how can it is possible that the coil has burnt. It is alleged that the complainant made many complaints by personal visits, in written and via email but all in vain. On these facts complainant prays that O.P be directed to replace defected electric lock with a new one and also to pay compensation as claimed.
2. The O.P was duly served but it did not put in appearance, therefore, it was proceeded with ex-parte vide orders dated 1.4.2015. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as alleged in the complaint.
3. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submission of the complainant.
4. The complainant in this matter has placed on record the receipt of purchase of two electric locks dated 28.11.2014 for sum of Rs.2500/- from the OP. He has also referred to the warranty card issued by the OP. His contention is that despite warranty of commodity i.e. electric locks how it is possible that the coil has burnt without using the product. Complainant filed the complaint on the defective electric locks. Therefore, the complainant has claim deficiency of service and has prayed for redressal for his grievance. Though this is an ex-parte matter but the complainant is supposed to stand on its own legs, meaning thereby to substantiate the facts of the complaint against OP by leading cogent evidence. Obviously the complainant has relied upon two documents namely one receipt alleged to have been issued by OP on 28.11.14. However, there is interpolation over the date which in fact, it appears to be 28.11.04 or 09. It cannot be said to have been issued on 28.11.14. Besides this the name of the complainant is not specifically mentioned in the said bill. Moreover it contained some writing showing as if it is already sold to someone for Rs.3400/-. Strangely enough the receipt did not contain the signature of seller much less than the OP. Other document in support of the claim is the warranty card. Similarly the so-called warranty card does not bear the name of the complainant and the particulars of the warranty card had been struck out. This warranty card does not lead us to anywhere. Both the documents delineated above relied upon by the complainant are sham documents and do not prove the case of the complainant in any manner. Complaint is, therefore, dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 04th day of January, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member