RAJIV GOAL Vs. M M DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE had admitted this Revision Petition and directed a notice to be issued to the parties by our Order dated 13th April, 1993. We also granted an interim stay of the order of State Commission on condition that the petitioner paid to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- within four weeks from the date of the order. On 10th November, 1994 we directed the Registrar of this Commission to call for the records of the case from the District Forum and to post the case as soon as the records are received. The Registrar reported on 28th September, 1994 that the records of the District Forum had been send to the State Commission in January, 1993 and that the same had been misplaced in the State Commission during shifting. The record has not been received so far.

(2.) THE Revision Petitioner has challenged the order of the District Forum dated 10th May, 1990 directing him to refund Rs. 19,500/- with interestatl5%from 18.10.1989 or else repair the furniture to the satisfaction of the Complainant. The main grouse of the Revision Petitioner is that he had no notice of the nearing held on the 10th May, 1990. On the contrary, the District Forum had first fixed the case for hearing on 20th June, 1990. But, subsequently, at the request of the Complainant it was advanced to 10th May, 1990 of which the Revision Petitioner/Opp. Party had no knowledge.

(3.) WE have, therefore, de novo gone through the available record. We find from the reply of 9th June, 1993 of the respondent/complainant in this Revision Petition that he had purchased certain items of furniture for which he had paid Rs. 19,500/-. He found the following defects in the furniture on delivery: