RAJIV GOAL vs M.M.DUTTA

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.

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. The case has had a chequered career since it was filed before the District Forum in 1990 and the Revision Petition was filed before this Commission in March, 1993. The record of the District Forum, as already noticed above, is not available.

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: (i) Oil stains on three pieces of Sofa set; (ii) Absence of wax polishing on sofa set on the dining table and chairs; and (iii) Unseemly stitchings defects.

THE District Forum, as already noticed, by a laconic ex-parte order dated 10th May, 1990 had directed the refund of the price in full Rs. 19,500/-with interest at 15%from 18.10.1989 or else repair the furniture to the satisfaction of the complainant. The District Forum had passed the ex-parte order on 10th May, 1990. The Revision Petitioner had not been present on the ground that he had no notice of hearing being held on that day as already mentioned above. The State Commission by its order dated 22nd March, 1993 in the appeal, filed by the Revision Petitioner for setting aside the ex parte order, dismissed the same on the ground that the appellant had been served on 10th May, 1990 and the application for setting aside the ex parte order had been filed beyond the period of one month, and, therefore, found no reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed this Revision Petition.

IT is evident from the facts that the defects in the furniture supplied are of a minor nature, oil stains on the sofa set, absence of wax polishing on the sofa set, dining table and chairs, and unseemly stitching. The relief granted to the Complainant by refund of the entire cost of furniture viz. Rs. 19,500/- for the deficiencies is evidently liberal, nay excessive.

IT was pleaded before us by the Revision petitioner that the furniture was supplied in 1989 and had been in the custody of the Respondent Complainant Col. M.M.Dutta all these years. It would, therefore, appear that the relief granted is unduly excessive and harsh on the revision petitioner who had supplied the furniture. In our opinion, it would meet the ends of justice if a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- is allowed to the Respondent Complainant for the said defects in the furniture. This sum shall be adjusted from out of the amount of Rs. 10,000/-paid to the Respondent Complainant in pursuance of our order of 13th April, 1993 and the balance amount of Rs. 9,000/- be refunded to the Revision Petitioner by the Respondent Complainant. There is no order as to costs.