MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals, arising out of the order dated 6.8.2010, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 389 of 2010, vide which it accepted the complaint filed by Neha Sharma, complainant and directed the OP to pay Rs.1,899/- (which was paid by the complainant towards the cost of the trouser on 1.1.2010), within 30 days, failing which to pay the amount with interest @ 12% p.a. The OPs were also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as litigation costs. 

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that on 1.1.2010, the complainant had purchased a trouser worth Rs.1899/- from the OP. It was stated that at the time of its purchase, it was found that the size of the trouser did not fit in with the measurements of the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant bought the trouser, as it was promised by the OP, that it would be altered to the required length. The complainant had purchased the trouser at 1 PM. However, the OP asked the complainant to collect the trouser after alteration at 4 PM. The complainant visited the showroom at around 4.30 PM, and was surprised to know that OP asked her to come again at 8 PM as the alteration work was not complete. At this, the complainant got annoyed and the OP promised to deliver the trouser, after alteration at her address by the next day. The OP failed to deliver the trouser by next noon also. It was further stated that the complainant made many calls to the OP, regarding the status of delivery of the trouser. The OP delivered the altered trouser finally after 12 noon on 2.1.2010. It was found that the trouser was altered so badly that it had become unfit for wearing.  It was further stated that the complainant approached the OP on 2.1.2010 for further alternation but the OP flatly refused to do so. It was stated that the complainant was told that he was free to purchase anything, in lieu of the damaged trouser at the same price. It was further stated that the OP gave a credit voucher dated 2.1.2010 for purchase, in lieu of the earlier trouser in order to secure the sale amount. The complainant received the credit voucher, under protest, and also visited the showroom again 2-3 times to make purchase but did not find anything suitable. It was further stated that the trouser was damaged by the OP. It was further stated that the OP was at fault. It had no right to force the complainant to purchase a different item, from its showroom, instead of returning the money to her. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OP on 15.4.2010 but it did not send reply till date. It was further stated that the above said acts of the OPs amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Notice was sent to the OP twice but it was received back with the remarks ‘refusal’ both the times.  Neither the OP nor any duly authorize representative appeared on its behalf. Hence, the OP was proceeded against exparte.

4.         The complainant led evidence, in support of her case.

5.         The learned District Forum allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the judgment.  

6.            Aggrieved against the inadequacy of compensation, awarded by the learned District Forum, the complainant/appellant filed appeal No.280 of 2010, for enhancement thereof, whereas OP/appellant, filed appeal No.349 of 2010 challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 6.8.2010. 

7.         We have heard Sh.Sahil, brother of Ms.Neha Sharma, appellant/complainant and Sh.Anupam Bansal, Advocate for the respondent/OP in Appeal No.280 of 2010, Sh.Anupam Bansal, Advocate for the appellant/OP and Sh.Sahil, brother of Ms.Neha Sharma, respondent/complainant, in appeal No.349 of 2010, and have perused the record, carefully.

8.            Sh.Sahil, brother of Ms.Neha Sharma, in appeal No.280/2010 submitted that while passing the impugned order, the learned District Forum neither appreciated the evidence of the complainant, nor granted adequate  compensation. It was further submitted that the trouser was purchased from an international branded showroom and thus it was expected of the OP to provide service of the highest order. It was further submitted that the learned District Forum did not award any compensation for loss, mental agony and insult suffered by the complainant, from 1.1.2010 till date. It was further stated that the compensation granted by the learned District Forum, is on the lower side and need to be enhanced.

9.         The learned Counsel for Wills Lifestyle, appellant in Appeal No.349/2010 submitted that the order passed by the learned District Forum against the appellant, is erroneous and illegal as 30 days clear notice was not issued for service for the first time. It was further submitted that even the report of the Process Server to the effect that the summons were refused was not worthy of credence, inasmuch as, the said report did not either disclose the name of the Manager to whom the summons had been tendered nor was the said report attested by any witness. It was further submitted that the alteration of length of the trouser was at the request of the respondent alone. The respondent did not like the fitment after changing the length, as per suggested measurement. It was further submitted that by giving a credit voucher, a privilege was granted to the customer, to select any article of the same price. It was further submitted that this fact was concealed by the respondent, in order to obtain the impugned order. It was further submitted that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of appellant/OP. 

10.     In the present case, the main point for consideration is as to whether the service upon the OP was effected, as per law, or not. After the perusal of record, it has been noticed by us that the District Forum after admitting the complaint on 29.6.2010, issued a notice for the appearance of the OP for 14.7.2010. For this date,  the OP did not appear, and one more opportunity was given to it and a fresh notice was issued through Regd. AD for 29.7.2010, and on receipt of report of refusal, when none appeared on behalf of the respondent, it was proceeded against exparte. It is clear that on both the occasions, the time given for effective service of the respondent was much less than 15 days only Regulation 10 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, reads as under ;

“10. Issue of notice – (1) Whenever the Consumer Forum directs the issuance of a notice in respect of a complaint, appeal or revision petition, as the case may be, to the opposite party(ies)/respondent(s), ordinarily such notice shall be issued for a period of 30 days and depending upon the circumstances of each case even for less than 30 days.”

From Regulation 10, extracted above, it is clear that ordinarily notice shall be issued for a period of 30 days, for the service of the OP. In the present case, the period of notice for the appearance of the OP, was much less than 30 days, and no reasons, had been recorded by the learned District Forum for issuance of a notice for service of the OP for less than 15 days. Moreover, we have also gone through the report of the Process Server dated 22.7.2010, in which it was written that the Manager of the company had refused to accept the summons, but the name of the Manager was not mentioned, nor this report was attested by any witness. The OP was, thus, not duly served. Thus, the OP was condemned unheard, as no opportunity, was granted to it, for filing written reply, with a view to set up its case nor an opportunity was afforded to it, to lead evidence. It is, thus, a fit case, to be remanded back to the District Forum for deciding the same afresh, in accordance with law. 

11.     For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the OP bearing No.349 of 2010 is accepted, and the order dated 6.8.2010, passed by the learned District Forum, is set aside. The complaint is remanded back to the concerned District Forum to decide it afresh, in accordance with law expeditiously, after giving an opportunity to the OP to file reply and lead evidence. The parties are direct to appear before the concerned District Forum on 30.5.2011 at 10.30 AM. The records of the District Forum be sent back at once.

12.          Appeal No.280 of 2010 filed by the appellant/complainant is disposed of, as having been rendered infructuous, at this stage, in view of the aforesaid observations.

13.     A copy of the judgment/order be kept in the complaint.

14.          Certified copies be sent to the parties, free of cost.

 Pronounced.                                                                        

11^th May, 2011.                                                          Sd/-