NIPPY JEWELLERS Vs. ASHOK KUMAR NABHEWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 20.9.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh ('State Commission' for short) by which the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent against the order of the District Forum passed on 21.12.2005 by which the District Forum had dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent. By its impugned order, the State Commission directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 14,400 in all to the respondent as compensation in respect of the Red Coral weighing 81/4 Rattis within a period of one month after which the amount would carry interest @9% p.a. The consumer complaint in this case was filed by the respondent against the petitioner who was opposite party before the District Forum. Briefly stated, the respondent had handed over to the petitioner a gold ring of pure gold studded with Ruby stone on 24.7.2004 to stud another precious stone Moonga weighing 8.25 Rattis. The petitioner had promised to return the gold ring along with studded precious stone on 26.7.2004 at 4.00 p.m. but according to the respondent/ complainant, he did not do so, although, the ring was to be worn by the respondent on 27.7.2004 on some auspicious occasion. It is the case of the respondent/complainant that he did not take the delivery of the ring when the representative of the petitioner approached him on 1.8.2004 to hand over the gold ring studded with two stones because according to the respondent, the petitioner had changed the precious Red Coral and studded it with inferior quality stone. In spite of the respondent/ complainant asking the petitioner several times to return the precious stone Red Coral (Moonga) which was of the value Rs. 20,000, he refused to return the same. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint in question was filed by the respondent claiming Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental torture and agony besides cost of Moonga of Rs. 20,000. On being noticed, the petitioner/opposite party contested the complaint and filed his written reply denying the allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. On appraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the respondent against the opposite party/ petitioner.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the complainant/ respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission challenging the order of the District Forum which came to be set aside by the State Commission vide its impugned order.

(3.) We have heard Mr. K.C. Bajaj, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared for the respondent although he had earlier appeared and participated in the proceedings. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the District Forum after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence placed before it had rightly rejected the complaint filed by the respondent. It is clearly recorded by the District Forum in its finding that the respondent had failed to prove his case against the petitioner and hence the complaint could not be accepted. The State Commission, however, by its impugned order gravely erred while allowing the appeal and placing its reliance on the statement of one Sandeep Sharma from Jalandhar. It is submitted by the Counsel that in his statement, a copy of which is placed on the paper-book at page 22, the said Sandeep Sharma had indicated the price of Ruby stone weighing 81/4 Ratti as Rs. 12,400 calculated at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per Ratti whereas the State Commission has wrongly stated in its impugned order that Sandeep Sharma had sold Red Coral (Moonga) weighing 81/4 Rattis to the respondent for Rs. 12,400 in June 2004 and that the price of this Moonga was Rs. 1500 per Ratti. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the sole basis on which the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the well-reasoned order of the District Forum was factually incorrect on the face of it and hence it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He has also drawn our attention to another observation contained in para 12 of the impugned order by which the State Commission has rejected the testimony of a wholesale dealer in the Red Coral, in which it was stated that the price of Red Coral varies from Rs. 22 to Rs. 150 per Ratti, without giving any cogent reason except referring to a brochure produced from internet which indicates that price of Moonga (Red Coral) is much more than Rs. 150 per Ratti but without specifying the extent of difference in the prices particularly with reference to the facts and circumstances of the present case. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order suffers from serious infirmity inasmuch as the same is based on wrong appreciation of evidence on record and it is liable to be set aside.