RAJESH VERMA vs Mahavira Trading Co

FACTS necessary for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant, who had filed the complaint before the District Forum, allegedly purchased one electric iron from the Opposite Party vide Cash Memo Bill No. 7806 dated 13.3.92. The iron was found to be defective and it was, therefore, handed over to the Opposite Party for repairs/replacement of the same with a new iron in working condition on 16.3.92. Several visits made by the complainant produced no result. Ultimately, the Opposite Party even refused to return the iron or to exchange the same or refund its price. The complainant claimed compensation under the following heads: - (a) Cost of iron Rs. 325.00 (b) Conveyance charges Rs. 600.00 (c) Compensation Rs. 5,000.00 Total : Rs. 5,925.00

IN the written statement filed by the Opposite Party it was stated that the iron in question was sold on 3.8.92 and not on 13.3.92, as alleged by the complainant. In fact the date was not mentioned in the cash memo which was wrongly incorporated as 13.3.92 by the complainant. The present complaint had been filed on 6.8.92 i.e., on the third day of the purchase of the iron. This was a device adopted by the complainant in order to extract compensation for which there was no basis. It was categorically denied that the iron had been handed over to the Opposite Party either for repairs or for replacement. In the rejoinder filed by the complainant it was stated that the date of the carbon copy of the preceding and following cash memos had been tampered with by the Opposite Party in order to evade taxation as the financial year closed on 31st March, 1992.

THE averments made in the complaint were reiterated. The District Forum dismissed the complaint as false and frivolous with Rs. 1,000/ - as costs. It was noted in the order by the District Forum that they had seen the original cash memo book and in particular cash memo number 7801 to 7811 pertaining to sales on 3.8.92. The cash memo in question bears Sl. No. 7806. It was therefore firmly concluded that the sale of the iron in question took place only on 3.8.92 and not on 13th March, 1992. It was also held that an iron was never handed over to the Opposite Party for repairs or replacement as the complainant had failed to produce any receipt for handing over the iron to the Opp. Party. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

THE fact that cash memo Nos. 7801 to 7811 had been issued on 3.8.92 is borne out by the copy containing the carbon copies of those memos. It cannot, therefore, be easily disputed that the iron in question was sold only on 3.8.92 as the complaint itself was filed on 6.8.92. The version put forward by the respondent in the appeal becomes in credible because in his anxiety to make his version plausible and natural the complainant seems to have filed in the date of 13.9.92. We find it altogether unsafe to place implicit reliance on the assertion made by the complainant. We, therefore, find it difficult in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case to accept that the complainant handed over the iron for repairs/ replacement without insisting on a receipt. We find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the District Forum and consequently dismiss the appeal as without merit, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties. Appeal dismissed. _ ===========================================================================