RAJESH KAPOOR Vs. KUSUM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have examined the record with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties. ....................................................................... ............................ Whether Local Papers may be allowed to see the order?

(2.) FACTS by and large are admitted and have been noted in detail in the impugned order. We will notice only such facts as are necessary and required for the disposal of this appeal. A Canon Photocopier machine was admittedly purchased by the respondent from the appellant on 16.1.2004. Since it was not functioning properly, as such it was returned on 17.1.2004 by her to the appellant. Thereafter, neither the machine was rectified nor it has been returned to the respondent. Record further shows that respondent was unemployed and with a view to earn livelihood she approached the Punjab National Bank, Sundernagar, for grant of loan in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 and had purchased photocopier, lamination and other machines. Out of Rs. 1,00,000, she had deposited Rs. 5,000 as margin money and Rs. 95,000 was paid by the bank.

(3.) BEFORE filing the complaint, it is admitted case of the parties that a registered notice was issued by the respondent to the appellant. It was not replied to. Explanation given by the appellant is that during the process of shifting of his premises from Post Office Road to School Bazar, Mandi, all his papers were lost including the registered envelope sent by the respondent. In this background, she filed the complaint wherein impugned order has been passed. The stand of the appellant before the District Forum below as well as in this appeal is that the photocopier machine was never returned by the respondent to him for repair. She has filed her own affidavit along with two other affidavits in evidence to establish her case. Similarly evidence has also been produced by way of affidavit by the appellant. From the complaint file, it is evident that detailed cross -examination was conducted of the deponents who had sworn affidavits in evidence on behalf of the parties. We are prima facie satisfied that there is no reason for the respondent to institute a frivolous, much less a baseless complaint alleging non -return of the photocopier machine which was handed over to him for repairs on 17.1.2004 i.e. the very next day of the purchase.