MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 25.11.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 1043 of 2009.

2.       Brief facts of the case are that on 20.3.2007 the complainant purchased one Diamond Ring from OP i.e. Gitanjali Exclusive for Rs.16,498/-. It was averred that on 21.4.2009 the complainant had given back the diamond by non-returnable Gate Pass No.36, in which the OP had written that the complainant would receive Rs.13,198/- by cheque. The OP also promised that the cheque would be delivered at their residence within one week but the complainant did not receive the cheque even after two weeks and the complainant enquired from the OP about the cheque, the OP promised to deliver the same within 2-3 days. Ultimately on 18.6.2009 the complainant received a Cheque for Rs.10,688/-, which was Rs.2510/- less as promised by the OP. On enquiry, the OP informed that Rs.2510/- was deducted as one portion of diamond was missing. The complainant told the OP that they should check and verify the contents of the diamond at the time of delivery to them i.e. 21.4.2009 and it was not justified that later on they unilaterally decide about the contents of the diamond. The above said act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.       Reply was filed by the OP and admitted the factum of purchase of the diamond ring by the complainant and pleaded that the complainant used the ring for more than two years and on 21.4.2009, sold the same to OP. It was pleaded that at that time, he was told that 20% of the original price of diamond ring would be deducted and was also told that one diamond was missing from the ring. After following the proper procedure, a cheque for Rs.10,688/- was handed over to the complainant. All other material allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint were denied and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.       The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

5.       The learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay Rs.2510/- along with interest @9% p.a. since 21.4.2009 along with Rs.2200/- as costs of litigation till the amount paid to the complainant.  If the aforesaid amount not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a., since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 24.7.2009 till this payment of the complainant.

6.          Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant. Sh.Kulwinder Singh, Advocate has appeared on behalf of appellant and none appeared on behalf of respondent. Respondent was already proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.1.2010.

7.       In appeal, the learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the pleadings as well as evidence on record in their true prospective, which is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned District Forum has decided the complaint in favour of the complainant but seriously erred in awarding compensation of Rs.2510/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. since 21.4.2009 along with Rs.2200/- as litigation cost only and if the amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. since the filing of the complaint i.e. 24.7.2009 till payment of the complainant. The appellant has proved on record the fact that there is deficiency in service but the learned District Forum awarded very small amount as compensation whereas the complainant has prayed for the damages of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.15,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant in order to satisfy the mental agony suffered by him at the hands of OP.  Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and enhance the compensation and costs of litigation.

8.       We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

9.       The main point for consideration before us is whether the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum is adequate ?

10.     It is admitted that the complainant had purchased the diamond ring costing Rs.16,498/- from the OP on 21.4.2009. It is further admitted that when the complainant returned the said ring to the OP after making deduction of 20% from the original price, the OP assured the complainant that the complainant would receive a sum of Rs.13,198/- by cheque within one week but on 18.6.2009 the complainant received a cheque of Rs.10,688/- by further deducting an amount of Rs.2510/-, the cost of the missing diamond as averred by the OP. Due to this act of OP, a complaint was filed by the complainant before the learned District Forum and the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs.2510/- to the complainant as the amount which the OP had paid him less from the original cost of the diamond ring. This amount was also directed to be paid by the OP along with interest @ 9% p.a. since 21.4.2009 the date on which the complainant returned the diamond ring to the OP and Rs.2200/- as costs of litigation till the amount paid to the complainant. If the aforesaid amount not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint till its payment. Against this order, an appeal was filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation. After going through the facts of the case, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum is adequate to meet the ends of justice. The law on this issue has already been settled that the compensation awarded should be adequate and not for the enrichment of the complainant. The complainant has already been adequately compensated by the learned District Forum along with costs of litigation of Rs.2200/-. In our opinion the order passed by the learned District Forum is just, fair and proper and therefore no interference is called for.

11.     In view of the foregoing discussion, finding no merit in the appeal, we dismiss the same with no order as to costs and the impugned order is upheld being just and fair.

12.          Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.

6^th August, 2010.