Satish Maniklalji Baheti vs Ku. Monika

THE present Revision Petition has been filed before this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 4.4.2013 in Appeal No. 1545 of 2001 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ''State Commission''). The State Commission dismissed the appeal which was filed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, ''District Forum'') in Complaint No. 149/1996, whereby it allowed the complaint. Brief facts of this case are: The Complainant had purchased a display monitor on 10.2.1995 for her STD/PCO shop at the cost of Rs. 21,000 from the opposite party, Mr. Satish Maniklalji Baheti, who is a dealer of DIGI Control Northern Pvt. Limited. The STD/PCO was allotted under Educated Un -employed Scheme. After one month, the OP took the display monitor from the Complainant''s STD/PCO with a promise to return the display monitor to the Complainant, with same number. The OP informed the Complainant that the said monitor has been called by the Company. The OP kept the old monitor model CPD. The said old monitor was not working properly. Even after lapse of one year, with the repeated requests, the OP did not return the original monitor model TCBSI. The Complainant had spent Rs. 4,000 for repairing the old monitor, which also went out of order. Thus, on 17.4.1996 the Complainant served a registered notice to the OP to return the TCBSI monitor, with Rs. 10,000 towards the loss and Rs. 5,000 towards mental torture. But the legal notice was returned back with the remarks, "Not available, for 7 days".

HENCE , the Complainant approached the District Forum, Amravati with the prayer directing OP to supply a brand new original TCBSI monitor or to pay Rs. 21,000 with the interest @ 24% p.a., Rs. 25,000 as damages with Rs. 5,000 for mental agony. The District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered the OP to refund Rs. 21,000 with interest @ 12% per annum from 3.6.1996 plus Rs. 5,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000 as costs. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, an Appeal was filed in the State Commission by the Petitioner/OP which too, was dismissed. Hence, this Revision Petition.

HEARD arguments on behalf of both parties and perused the orders of both the Fora below. The Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that the State Commission and District Forum have passed the orders without any evidence on the allegations of the Complainant.

THIS case pertains to the year 1995, about 2 decades have passed, and the case is still being unnecessarily dragged on, to harass the Complainant. The observations of the District Forum clearly goes to show as follows: "That from this Forum has come to the conclusion that, the OP has intentionally avoided to remain present before the Forum in spite of several opportunities given to him to plead and considering this circumstantial evidence Forum has come to conclusion that, the OP has given promise to give new Monitor with Display of same number instead of new Monitor with display, because the said Monitor was demanded back by the company and till then in exchange gave old Monitor No. CPD to the Complainant to meet the requirement, this say of Complainant is accepted and OP is held guilty of adopting unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r)(vi) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and committed fraud, on this conclusion the Forum has reached."

Therefore, it is clear that the OP was shirking away from its responsibility by not accepting legal notices and also avoiding to change the monitor or refund the amount. It amounts to unfair trade practice. Both the Fora taken similar views. The facts cannot be agitated now again. The factual position stands proved. Hence, the Complainant deserves proper compensation because she is an educated unemployed lady who suffered due to unfair practices of OP. Both the Fora below have passed well considered order, which do not need any interference. Therefore, this Revision Petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs.