SUNNY EMPORIUM vs MALA SHARMA

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 22.4.94 passed by the District Forum, Gwalior in Case No. 1128/93.

THE appeal arises out of a complaint filed by the respondent against the appellant claiming refund of the price of defective goods sold by the appellant. Briefly the complainant''s case was that she had purchased two Frocks for a sum of Rs. 600/- from the shop of the opponent, that it was represented to her by the opponent that the Frocks were of good quality but after the? first wash there was discolouration and the complainant found out that the material used in the Frocks was of inferior quality. It was averred that when the complainant reported that fact to the opponent he agreed to refund the price and hence the Frocks were delivered back to him after obtaining a receipt in that behalf. She was assured that payment would be made within a week. THE complainant further averred that when she went to the shop of the opponent after a week and demanded refund of price, no payment was made to her. Hence she filed a complaint. THE claim was resisted by the opponent on the ground that no Frocks were purchased from the shop of the appellant. THE District Forum found after appreciating the material on record that two Frocks were purchased from the shop of the -appellant by the complainant, that she had paid a sum of Rs. 600/- for those Frocks, that those Frocks were returned by the complainant and that a receipt was given in that behalf by the opponent but the opponent failed to refund the price of those Frocks. In view of these findings, the District Forum granted relief to the complainant. Aggrieved by that order, the opponent has filed this appeal. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties we have come to the conclusion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. It was contended that the finding of the District Forum that two Frocks were purchased by the complainant from the shop of the appellant was erroneous. We have gone through the material on record. The fact that two Frocks were purchased from the shop of the opponent by the complainant is borne out by the statements of the complainant and her husband. They were cross-examined, but there is nothing in the cross-examination to discredit their testimony. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the appellant was not the owner of Shop No. G-4 and had not made any endorsement on the reverse of the printed visiting card of that shop as alleged by the complainant. That card is on record and therein the shops are shown to be located at G-4 and C-14 at Nazarbag Market. It is admitted by the appellant that visiting cards are given to the customers by way of advertisement and that the visiting card Ex. P/l was of the appellant. On that card the shops are shown to be located at G4 and C9 at Nazarbag Market. In view of this fact the contention that the appellant is not the owner of shop located at No. G-4 cannot be upheld. The District Forum has relied on the testimony of the complainant and her husband. No cogent reason has been shown to us for disbelieving their testimony. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the District Forum. In view of these findings the District Forum was justified in granting relief to the complainant.

The appeal therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.