MAHABIR SINGH DESWAL Vs. ARORA HANDLOOM STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The present Petitioner had filed the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind, complaining of certain defects in the goods purchased by him from the Opposite Party i.e., the present Respondent. He had purchased two mattresses which according to the Complainant were substandard and he had accordingly returned the same to the dealer but the latter had failed to return the price. The District Forum vide order dated 16.5.92 accepted the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to compensate the Complainant by making payment to him of a sum of Rs. 1,740/- charged from him as the price of the goods which was defective. One month's time was allowed to the Opposite Party to refund the amount. Later on the Complainant filed an application under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the enforcement of the order passed by the District Forum. According to the allegations in the application the Opposite Party had not complied with the directions issued by the District Forum within the stipulated period. Notice on the application was issued to the Opposite Party who appeared before the District Forum and represented that he has already refunded the amount in question to the Complainant. The Complainant filed his own affidavit in support of his contention while the Opposite Party filed his own affidavit as well as of two other persons in support of its contention that it had paid the amount to the Complainant. After hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the District Forum accepted the contention of the Opposite Party that it had paid the amount to the Complainant and accordingly dismissed application filed by the Complainant.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved the Complainant filed appeal before the State Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh which was registered as First Appeal No. 21 of 1993. The State Commission relying upon some of its earlier precedents held that no appeal lies against an order passed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. A prayer was made that the appeal be treated as Revision Petition. However, the State Commission could not find adequate ground for accepting that prayer. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, the Complainant has filed this Revision Petition before this Commission. The main contention of the Complainant-Petitioner is that the District Forum was not justified in relying upon the affidavits filed by the Opposite Party, as the Opposite Party could not produce any receipt about the payment. We are of the opinion that these points cannot be gone into at this stage. The only question to be seen is whether the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregularity. (Reference can be made to Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act). The Petitioner has failed to show that the order of the State Commission is in any way vitiated on account of jurisdictional error. Accordingly we do not find any force in the present Revision Petition and dismiss the same. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.