Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1239/2016

Shoppers Stop Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arvind Kumar Goutam s/o Omprkash Goutam - Opp.Party(s)

Prasant Kumar Sharma

03 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1239/2016

 

Shoppers Stop Ltd. regd.office Eureka Tower, 9^th floor, B-wing, Mind Space, Link Road, Malad (West) Mumbai through Manager & ors.

Vs.

Arvind Kumar Gautam s/o Omprakash Gautam r/p 170/35 Haldi Ghati Marg, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.

 

 

Date of Order 3.10.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr.Prashant Sharma counsel for the appellant

Mr. Arvind Kumar counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

 

2

 

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned DCF Jaipur 2^nd dated 1.8.2016 whereby the claim has been allowed.

 

The contention of the appellant is that matter was heard ex-parte before the Forum below as he was not served and Rs.101/- were not due. It was returned immediately and false case has been prepared.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that the order of the Forum below is justified and no interference is needed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

On 11.1.2016 ex-parte proceedings were ordered against the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that he could get the notice on 13.1.2016 but nothing has been brought on record which could show the contention of the appellant to be genuine. A mail sent to Prashant Sharma dated 13^th January has been placed on record but this could not show that summons were received on 13^th January. Be that may be the case when

3

 

summons were received by the appellant on 13^th January inspite of this they could not choose to appear before the Forum below immediately and on 31.3.2016 an application for setting aside the ex-parte order was unnecessarily submitted which was not maintainable before the Forum below and hence, rejected and on filing revision no fruitful order could be passed in favour of the appellant. Hence, the appellant has chosen not to appear before the Forum below and a reasonable opportunity of hearing was allowed to them which they have not availed.

 

Merits have also been heard. The contention of the appellant is that respondent paid Rs. 2512/- and after deducting the amount of articles i.e. Rs. 2411/- Rs. 101/- paid immediately. On the bill 'change due' is only a computer generated notion which is misused by the respondent and his further contention is that now instructions were issued to the various stores to record “change return” or “amount returned” and further to fortify this contention number of sale receipts are being submitted which clearly shows that it contains the total amount of bill, further it has been rounded off, cash which is tendered and after deduction 'change due' or ' change returned' is also entered. Hence, in view of the above no deficiency has been committed by the appellant.

4

 

In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 1.8.2016 is set aside.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm