Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The District Forum considering the affidavits and documents placed on record noted in its order that Complainant had produced invoice of the film purchased from the Opponents.  There was no guaranty mentioned on the invoice.  Complainant had not produced in the District Forum guaranty card about the said film. The District Forum also noted in its impugned judgement that the Complainant had not produced expert evidence.  He had not got film or soil tested for the efficient use of the film for preparing field pond.  The Forum also noted in its order that the Opponent had produced at page no.61 letter dated 26.02.1999 who had offered to carry out necessary repairs.  Opponent was willing to drain out the water available in the field pond.  Complainant was not prepared to do so.  The Forum also found that photographs produced by the Complainant clearly showed that there was still water in the field pond and photos themselves would not prove that films produced by the Opponent were defective.  Therefore, the Forum also held that Complainant had failed to prove that the film supplied by the Opponent was defective and was pleased to dismiss the complaint and being aggrieved by the said dismissal of the complaint, the original Complainant has filed this appeal.