SATRUGHAN PD. SHARMA vs P.G. SUPER SOUND INDUSTRIES

THIS complaint has been heard ex parte, as the O.P. did not appear inspite of the notice. The complainant has filed the case against the O.P. with a prayer to direct the O.P. to pay the cost of cassettes Rs. 1,00,000/- and to refund back Rs. 6,000/- as paid by the complainant to the O.P. and also claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- and further claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for defame the complainant''s name and goodwill in the market by producing fake cassette and claimed another Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

THE brief fact of the case is that on 28.10.1996 an order was placed to manufacture 1000 cassettes in the name of "Nandia Chhappan Chhuriya." (Bhojpuri) to the O.P. on the consideration of total manufacturing amount of Rs. 13,400/- only. For the compltion of the above cassette the complainant has given the O.P. master copy of the cassettee and also paid Rs. 6,000/- as advance under the agreement and rest of the amount shall be paid on the date of delivery of the cassette. THE O.P. has granted receipt on 28.10.1996 after receipt of the advance money. THE delivery of the cassette was to be made in the last week of December 1996. THE complainant approached for the delivery of the cassette in the last week of December 1996 and also on several dates in the month of January, 1997 but he failed to deliver the cassette. THEreafter the complainant requested the O.P. to return back the master copy of the original cassette and the advance money of Rs. 6,000/- but O.P. denied. THE complainant served a legal notice to the O.P. but it was not replied and thereafter the complaint was filed with the above relief and the total claim of the complainant against the O.P. was to the tune of Rs. 6,56,000/- only as detailed above. THE O.P. was noticed and the O.P. was appeared through the lawyer. On preliminary objection raised on behalf of the O.P. about the maintainability of the complaint both the parties were heard and by order dated 26.5.1999 it was held that complaint is maintainable. THE O.P. has not filed any rejoinder or affidavit though the lawyer regularly appeared on his behalf but after some time O.P. left making Pairvi. In behalf of the complainant it was submitted that he has filed an affidavit, which is on record in support of the above contention of the complaint petition. There is no counter affidavit on behalf of the O.P. A photo copy of estimate dated 25.10. 1996 has been filed along with the complaint petition to show that complainant has made advance of Rs. 6,000/- to P.G. Super Sound Industries. There is no evidence on record on behalf of the complainant to prove that this photocopy of the receipt is the copy of the original receipt granted by the O.P. There is no evidence in support of genuineness of this receipt nor on its basis the complainant''s case is proved that he has advanced Rs. 6,000/- for the supply of 1000 cassettes to the complainant. The reliefs claimed by the complainant appear to be highly inflated and without any material to support any of the reliefs claimed by him. Most of the reliefs claimed by the complainant appears to be imaginary and inflated having no basis in its support.

After going through the complaint petition and the affidavit of the complainant and the submission made on his behalf we are of the view that complainant has miserably failed to provide its case adducing any relevant evidence and as such he is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed for.

IN the result, the complaint petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Complaint dismissed.