At, Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ahmedabad
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. R.P. DHOLAKIA
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. MR. S.A. MAKHIJA
By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JYOTIBEN P. JANI
For the Appellant: Hiten Bhatt for P.R. Dave, Advocates. For the Respondents: H.S. Bhatt, Advocate.
S.A. Makhija, Member-
1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City (Addl.) passed on 27th April, 2010 in Consumer Complaint No.904 of 2009 whereby the complaint came to be dismissed, the appellant has filed this appeal, the appellant is original opponents and they are referred to as such for the sake of convenience hereafter in their original nomenclature.
2. The short facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant had purchased Videocon ‘34’ Jumbo TV from the opponents on 24.8.2009. The said TV was replaced twice on complaint’s say. The complainant was still not satisfied and he insisted for refund of the amount. He had expressed grievance about the spreading of colour. The opponents technician had gone to repair the set but the complainant had not allowed the technician to open the TV set for repair. According to opponents they had already replaced the set twice for complainant’s satisfaction. There being a minor fault, TV could be repaired, but the complainant did not allow the set to be opened. Naturally without opening the T.V. set nothing could be done by the opponent’s technician.
3. In the case of Northern Railway & Ors. v. Dau Dayal Chaturvedi (IV (2010) CPJ 154 (NC)) Hon’ble National Commission has held that any person alleging fact must establish it with evidence and it cannot be established on presumption. In this case, a mention has to be made that admittedly the complainant as a matter of fact, has been replaced the TV. set twice. Still the complainant was not satisfied and he complained about some colour defect in the TV. Admittedly again the opponents had sent their technician to look into the matter but the complainant did not allow him to open the set. It is a settled legal position that the complainant has to prove by cogent and reliable evidence that the set was defective and mere complainants by bare words are not sufficient. A mention has also to be made to an admitted position that the opponents had replaced the set twice. The complaint therefore being frivolous has rightly been dismissed b
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
y the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Accordingly, we pass the following order. We, therefore, pass the following order. Order: The appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.