Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/517/2020

Gurraj Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rohit Bansal - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

14 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	517 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	06.10.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	14.12.2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gurraj Singh s/o Sh.Gurdev Singh, R/o H.No.558, Phase 3BI, Mohali, Punjab.

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

Rohit Bansal, Shop No.214, Sector 48, Motor Market, Chandigarh

    ….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SMT.SURJEET KAUR     PRESIDING MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by  : Complainant in person

   Sh.Roopam Jain, Counsel for OP

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

         The case of the complainant briefly is that he purchased Air Coolent for his vehicle engine for Rs.3500/- from the OP in August, 2020.  It is stated that a problem has occurred in the said air coolent, so the complainant requested the OP to either replace it but the OP demanded more money.  It is submitted that the complainant made several calls to the OP to either replace the air coolent or refund the amount of Rs.3500/- paid by him vide bill Ann.C-1, but the OP did not bother to it.  Hence, this complaint has been preferred.

 

2]      The OP in its reply stated that vide the said bill dated 3.8.2020, three items were sold to the complainant for Rs.3500/- i.e. Oil filter laura for Rs.450/-, Coolant Rs.550/- and Engine Oil for Rs.2500/- vide Bill Ann.A. The OP while denying other allegations of the complainant stated that the complainant has not come with clean hands and allegedly falsely, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]      We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OP and have perused the entire record including written arguments.   

  

5]      From the record, it is made out that the complainant though alleged the supply of defective coolent to him by the OP, but failed to prove the same by placing on record any substantial technical report to establish    his clam of problem in the coolant.  

 

6]      In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

            Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

14.12.2023                                                          

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER