Mr. Justice Palok Basu, President—This appeal has been filed by Shri K.M. Tripathi who is a respectable lawyer practising in Allahabad. He is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by District Forum, Allahabad in a complaint filed by him which was numbered as 495/1993.

When this appeal was admitted, notices were issued to the respondents. It appears that service is sufficient but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties/respondents. Sri. K.M. Tripathi has argued the matter himself with ability.

2. The whole case of Sri K.M. Tripathi rests on the oral allegations made by him that he had purchased a Nikitasha Television on 30.11.1988 from the opposite parties/respondents. A sum of Rs. 10,400/- was handed over to them as price thereof by cheque. The details of the cheque etc. are not mentioned in the complaint with regard to the payment for the price of the said transaction relating to the colour Television. A second Television is said to have been purchased in December, 1990 by the appellant Sri K.M. Tripathi from the said opposite parties which was a Black & White Model of Murphy Make.

3. On receiving notices of the proceedings in complaint before the District Forum, the opposite parties filed detailed written statement. Sri Tripathi has placed the entire complaint, the entire written statment and the entire replication filed by him. The opposite parties have denied the fact that the Television was out of order soon after the alleged purchase. Their consistent case was that the Television was purchased in the year 1988 with a challan issued against its sale because no price was paid by the complainant. It was further pleaded by the opposite parties in the written statement that the complainant had by then paid around Rs. 5,000/- towards the price of the two Television Sets but a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and odd was still outstanding. Since the entire price had not been cleared, there was no occasion for the opposite parties to issue receipt. They admitted in the same breath in the written statement that repairing was got done after four years i.e., in the fifth year of delivery of the television sets. In this connection, reliance was placed by the opposite parties on the fact that no complaint etc. was made against the alleged working or non-working of the television set in all those five years. It was further pleaded that the Television would be returned or was available for immediate possession of the complainant provided repairing charges and balance amount were paid by the complainant to the opposite parties.

Both parties admit that they had very good friendly and professional relationship. Sri Tripathi has appended list of several cases in which he had appeared as a lawyer on behalf of those opposite parties. He also drew attention to the fact that Sri Shiv Nath Chopra who was the main showman of the opposite parties firm had ultimately died unfortunately in the year 1993 with the result that the remaining members of his family who constitute the firm, when took over the responsibilities, handed down a blank denial to the relationship and friendship which were existing between the parties.

4. While it may be true that Sri Tripathi may have placed reliance on the conduct of the opposite party Sri Shiv Nath Chopra or some other members of his family but the fact remains that no receipt, no document or no proof of sale in the year 1988 has been filed by Sri Tripathi. The only document available relating to the sale transaction is the challan which has been filed by the opposite parties indicating transfer of the Television set on credit. It is again admitted that while the transactions are said to have happened in 1988, repairing was admittedly got done on the fifth year of the said sale.

5. The District Forum has proceeded on one ground and perhaps rightly so. It has come to the conclusion that on the basis of the complainant’s evidence, it is not possible to hold that the actual transaction had taken plac