Baba Farid Ji Marble House vs MANJIT KAUR

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.

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.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and husband/authorised representative for the respondent finally at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if StateCommissionobserved that matter should have been decided on merits by District Forum, learned State Commission should have remanded the matter to District Forum for disposal of the complaint on merits, but has committed error in deciding complaint on merits; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to District forum. On the other hand, authorized representative of respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

IT is not disputed that learned District forum directed complainant to approach Civil Court for redressal of his grievance as District Forum was not proper Forum due to comprehensive evidence of the parties. Learned State Commission in the light of judgment of Hon ''bleApex Court in Amar JwalaPaper Mills (India) and Anr. Vs. State Bank of India - (1998) 8 SCC 387 observed that complaint is required to be decided on merits and order of District forum needs to be set aside. In subsequent paragraphs, learned State Commission recorded submissions of parties and in para 27 of the judgment decided complaint on merits.

ONCE State Commission had come to the conclusion that learned District Forum should not have relegated complainant to approach Civil Court, learned State Commission should have remanded the matter back to learned District forum for deciding complaint on merits and learned State Commission ought not to have decided complaint on merits that too practically by non -speaking order because State Commission has not discussed all thesubmissionsmade by the parties. Authorized Representative of the respondent submitted that as matter is too old, learned State Commission has not committed any error in deciding complaint on merits. This argument is devoid of force because originally complaint has to be decided by the Consumer Fora having original jurisdiction. As complaint was not decided on merits by learned District forum, it was obligatory on the part of State Commission to remand the matter back to District Forum for deciding it on merits.

IN the light of aforesaid discussion, revision petition is to be allowed partly and order allowing complaint is to be set aside and matter is to be remanded back to District Forum for deciding it on merits.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and impugned order dated 25.7.2011 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 393 of 2006 - Manjit Kaur Vs. Baba Farid Ji Marbal House is partly set aside and order deciding complaint on merits and awarding compensation is set aside, but order holding that District Forum is competent to decide complaint on merits is upheld. Matter is remanded back to District forum to decide it afresh on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties preferably within 6 months from the date of receipt of order with no order as to costs.

PARTIES are directed to appear before the State Commission on 26.11.2014.