w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Chander Shekhar Verma v/s M/S. New Fashion

    Appeal No. A-48 of 2002

    Decided On, 21 January 2002

    At, Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LOKESHWAR PRASAD
    By, PRESIDENT & MS. RUMNITA MITTAL
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Shankar Chatterjee, Advocate. For the Respondent: None.



Judgment Text

Lokeshwar Prasad, President:

1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), is directed against order dated the 15.12.2001, passed by District Forum (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 801/2001 - entitled Shri Chander Shekhar Verma v. M/s. New Fashion.

2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant, Shri Chander Shekhar Verma had filed a complaint, before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Act averring that the appellant, on 28.12.1999, had purchased one readymade trouser (pant) from the respondent for Rs. 670/- for his child. The grievance of the appellant, in the complaint, filed by him, before the District Forum, was that when the trouser was used by the child of the appellant, the same was found torn after a few days. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the appellant, that the above fact the appellant brought to the notice of the respondent who had assured him to exchange the same. It was stated that despite several visits the respondent had neither replaced the trouser in question nor refunded the cost paid by the appellant to the respondent of the trouser in question. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, it was prayed that the respondent be directed to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 11,770/- towards cost of the pant and compensation for physical and mental agony and harassment.

3. The claim of the appellant, in the District Forum, was resisted by the respondent. In the reply/written version, while admitting the receipt filed by the appellant, the respondent had denied the other allegations contained in the complaint.

4. The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent in fact had sold the respective trouser to the appellant. On the basis of the above finding, the learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant with no order as to costs.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of material on record, it is an admitted fact that the trouser in question was purchased by the appellant on 28.12.1999 and the legal notice complaining of the defects in the trouser was sent by the appellant to the respondent on 17.5.2001 i.e. almost after 1 years of the alleged purchase of the trouser in question. Not only this, the complaint was filed by the appellant on 30.8.2001 i.e. almost after one year and eight months of the alleged purchase of the trouser in question by the appellant from the respondent. No satisfactory explanation for this inordinate delay is forthcoming from the end of the appellant which creates a reasonable doubt about the genuineness of the claim of the appellant because the normal conduct of a person, purchasing such like item, is that he would complain about the defect in goods purchased by him at the earliest opportunity and not after such a long lapse of time. Not only this even the notice given by the appellant to the respondent had some material omissions which in fact go to the root of the case.

In the presence of the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

above facts, the order being impugned in the present proceedings suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in-limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
O R