MAHAMAI TRADERS GENERAL MERCHANTS Vs. SHANKAR CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of District Forum Kangra at Dharamshala, Camp at Kangra, in Consumer Complaint No. 114/2005 dated 8.6.2007 whereby the District Forum below has allowed the complaint of the respondent No. 1 by directing the appellant who is the wholesale dealer and respondent No. 2 who is the manufacturer of Lay Chips to refund the price of 5 packets of Lay Chips to the respondent No. 1 within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order and they were jointly and severally held liable to pay compensation to the respondent No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 10,000.

(2.) FACTS of the case are within very narrow compass. Respondent No. 1 who is running two shops having STD connections at Kangra had purchased 48 packets of chips for an amount of Rs. 214 on the occasion of birthday party of his son on 24.2.2005. During the party when the lay chips packets were to be distributed to the children, then it had come to his notice that the 4 packets of chips were totally empty and were having only air and some were only having small quantity of chips than the prescribed one. As such it was a case of deficiency of service/unfair trade practice adopted by the appellant. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed wherein direction has been sought for refunding an amount of Rs. 214 and also awarding of compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000 for mental torture and harassment and Rs. 20,000 towards cost of litigation. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) APPELLANT has contested the complaint and submitted the defence version wherein it has been pleaded that respondent No. 1 is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since chips were purchased for the commercial purpose as he runs 2 Nos. of shops. It has also been alleged in the reply that no complaint was made by the respondent No. 1 regarding the defects in the lay chips packets, as such present complaint is false and frivolous story concocted by the respondent No. 1 in order to harass the appellant and it has also been pleaded that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant. The respondent No. 2 who is the manufacturer of lay chips despite service had not filed the reply of the case and the right of respondent No. 2 to file version was closed by the order of the District Forum below on 16.7.2005.