BABA FARID JI MARBLE HOUSE Vs. MANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 25.07.2011 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 393/2006 Manjit Kaur Vs. Baba Farid Ji Marbal House & Ors. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum directing parties to approach Civil Court was set aside and complaint was allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent placed order for Marble/Kota stone of Rs.75,000/- to OP/petitioner and paid Rs.5,000/- as advance. OP despatched Marble/Kota stone on 28.1.1997 in two trucks and complainant also paid money for freight and unloading and spent total Rs.79,800/-. It was further alleged that Marble/Kota stone was not of standard quality as per sample and had different colours and papri and at the time of fixing some stone got broken. Inspite of repeated calls and notice, OP neither visited site of the complainant, nor replaced the goods. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP No. 1 & 4/Petitioner No. 1 & 4 resisted complaint and submitted that complaint was barred by limitation and was bad for mis-joinder of parties as OP No. 2 & 3 were neither proper nor necessary parties. It was further submitted that husband of complainant visited site of OP and prepared estimate of purchase. He purchased different types of stone of Rs.25,200/- and bill for Rs.27,417/- was prepared after adding sales tax, etc. It was further submitted that complainant's husband paid Rs.417/- in cash and Rs.27,000/- were paid through bank draft. Complainant's husband himself selected goods and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties observed that parties are required to lead the detail and comprehensive evidence including the oral and expert witnesses, which cannot be lead in the Forum and thus, directed complainant to approach Civil Court. Appeal filed by complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and husband/authorised representative for the respondent finally at admission stage and perused record.