PRESIDENT R.S. SAILANI, SOPAN SAHITYIK MUNCH, HISAR vs BALBIR SINGH

THE unsuccessful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Hisar dismissing the complaint preferred by them.

WE are firmly of the view that the order under appeal has to be upheld and it is, therefore, unnecessary to over elaborate the matter in an order of affirmance. It suffices to mention that the appellant-Sopan Sahityik Munch had organised a Kavi Sammelan at Hisar on the 28th of March, 1992 and the respondents were engaged to take snaps and photographs/making a photo film thereof. The occasion was covered by as many as 36 snaps and the grievance in the complaint was that 23 out of them were found damaged or defective. It was further alleged that the sound in the Video Cassette was entirely unsatisfactory and the grievance was that the appellant-Munch had suffered irreparable loss and the relief sought was the refund of Rs. 400/- paid to the respondent and compensation in all to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. On notice being issued, the respondent raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the complaint, to which reference is now unnecessary. On merits, it was admitted that his services were engaged to photographically cover the Sammelan with stills and a cassette. The same were duly delivered to the appellants and accepted by them after seeing the photographs and playing the video cassette entirely to their satisfaction. However, the appellants failed to pay the balance of the charges due to him and as a counter-blast a false and frivolous complaint has been filed to evade the payment. The appellant-Munch reiterated their stand by way of replication and it would appear that the case was decided on the pleadings supported by an affidavit on behalf of the complainant & affidavits of Balbir Singh, respondent, Vijay Kumar, Suresh and Ramesh in rebuttal. The District Forum recorded that Shri Sailani, President of the Munch had not chosen to attach or produce any photographs and the defective video film with the complaint or with the replication. However, on the 10th of September, 1993 an application was made to the District Forum to get the photographs and the video cassette checked from an expert. However, the District Forum declined that request on the ground that the burden lay on the complainants themselves to establish the requisite defects.

The crucial fact is that during the course of the hearing Shri Sailani conceded before the District Forum that nobody had come forward to furnish a certificate about the quality or defect of the said snaps or cassette and further that no expert was ready to play the video film. Consequently, the District Forum forth-rightly took the view that the complainants were required to prove their case and they having failed to provide any testimony, no deficiency in the hired services could be said to be established. The complaint was inevitably dismissed.

MR. Sailani, learned Counsel for the appellant being apparently bereft of any meaningful argument, had contended that the District Forum should have either itself viewed the cassette film or should have got the same examined with regard to its quality. It was argued that having failed to do so, has resulted in a fatal flaw in the order under appeal. We regret our inability to subscribe to the said submission. It is somewhat elementary that in the consumer jurisdiction, the initial burden even though light, necessarily rests on the complainant to establish his case. It is not for the redressal agencies to take up cudgels on behalf of either of the parties. Herein, the appellant''s prayer for the District Forum to get the cassette checked from an expert was declined on the express ground that it was for the complainant-appellants to establish their stand. However, it would appear that not only were they remiss in doing so, but indeed had conceded in terms before the District Forum that nobody was coming forward to furnish a certificate about the quality or the defect in the said snaps or cassette. Nor was any expert ready to play the video film. It is further common ground that the appellants never sought the summoning of any expert or other evidence to establish their stand. ''

ONCE it is found as above, it is plain that the appellant''s case is one of no evidence at all being adduced in support of the complaint. That fact situation would bring into play the order of this Commission in I (1991) CPJ 653 ''Executive Engineer, Operation, H.S.E.B., Hissar v. Dr. Chander Bhan; wherein it was held as follows : "In the light of the above, the answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in the negative and it is held that a contested consumer dispute under the Act can only be decided on the basis of evidence and not de hors thereof."

The aforesaid observations cover the matter on all fours. Apart from the above, we are in agreement with the broad and fair view taken by the District Forum and confirming the same, the present appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. __________________