Suresh Chandra, Member:
1. Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 20.9.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (State Commission for short) by which the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent against the order of the District Forum passed on 21.12.2005 by which the District Forum had dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent. By its impugned order, the State Commission directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 14,400 in all to the respondent as compensation in respect of the Red Coral weighing 8¼ Rattis within a period of one month after which the amount would carry interest @ 9% p.a. The consumer complaint in this case was filed by the respondent against the petitioner who was opposite party before the District Forum.
2. Briefly stated, the respondent had handed over to the petitioner a gold ring of pure gold studded with Ruby stone on 24.7.2004 to stud another precious stone Moonga weighing 8.25 Rattis. The petitioner had promised to return the gold ring along with studded precious stone on 26.7.2004 at 4.00 p.m. but according to the respondent/complainant, he did not do so, although, the ring was to be worn by the respondent on 27.7.2004 on some auspicious occasion. It is the case of the respondent/complainant that he did not take the delivery of the ring when the representative of the petitioner approached him on 1.8.2004 to hand over the gold ring studded with two stones because according to the respondent, the petitioner had changed the precious Red Coral and studded it with inferior quality stone. In spite of the respondent/complainant asking the petitioner several times to return the precious stone Red Coral (Moonga) which was of the value Rs. 20,000, he refused to return the same. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint in question was filed by the respondent claiming Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental torture and agony besides cost of Moonga of Rs. 20,000. On being noticed, the petitioner/opposite party contested the complaint and filed his written reply denying the allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. On appraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the respondent against the opposite party/petitioner.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the complainant/respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission challenging the order of the District Forum which came to be set aside by the State Commissionvide its impugned order.
4. We have heard Mr. K.C. Bajaj, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared for the respondent although he had earlier appeared and participated in the proceedings. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the District Forum after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence placed before it had rightly rejected the complaint filed by the respondent. It is clearly recorded by the District Forum in its finding that the respondent had failed to prove his case against the petitioner and hence the complaint could not be accepted. The State Commission, however, by its impugned order gravely erred while allowing the appeal and placing its reliance on the statement of one Sandeep Sharma from Jalandhar. It is submitted by the Counsel that in his statement, a copy of which is placed on the paper-book at page 22, the said Sandeep Sharma had indicated the price of Ruby stone weighing 8¼ Ratti as Rs. 12,400 calculated at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per Ratti whereas the State Commission has wrongly stated in its impugned order that Sandeep Sharma had sold Red Coral (Moonga) weighing 8¼ Rattis to the respondent for Rs. 12,400 in June 2004 and that the price of this Moonga was Rs. 1500 per Ratti. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the sole basis on which the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the well-reasoned order of the District Forum was factually incorrect on the face of it and hence it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He has also drawn our attention to another observation contained in para 12 of the impugned order by which the State Commission has rejected the testimony of a wholesale dealer in the Red Coral, in which it was stated that the price of Red Coral varies from Rs. 22 to Rs. 150 per Ratti, without giving any cogent reason except referring to a brochure produced from internet which indicates that price of Moonga (Red Coral) is much more than Rs. 150 per Ratti but without specifying the extent of difference in the prices particularly with reference to the facts and circumstances of the present case. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order suffers from serious infirmity inasmuch as the same is based on wrong appreciation of evidence on record and it is liable to be set aside.
5. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record before us. While dismissing the complaint, the District Forum recorded the following reasons in support of its order:
œ4. Admittedly the Gold Ring studded with one Ruby stone was given by the complainant to the OP on 24.7.2004 for adding another stonei.e. Moonga. The grievance of the complainant is that the work was to be finished in the stipulated timei.e. on 26.7.2004 and therefore not only he had to repeatedly visit the OP but could not also wear it at the Shubh Mahurat; also that the ring when finally returned to him after the work was done contained stones of inferior quality and not the ones studded originally in it. The OP has denied that any stipulated time was given for the delivery of the ring in fact he had informed the complainant that he does not deal with stones and will have to buy stones from outside. He also denies that the stones were changed. There is no receipt or any document to show what kind of ring with what quality, size, weight, etc. of stone or its price was given to the OP. There is also no document to show what the nature of the work required was and when the work was to be completed and the ring delivered to the complainant. The OP does admitted to the receipt of Ruby Stone ring and there is a document Annexure C-1, dated 2.8.2004 which shows that the OP had received a Gold Ring weighting 7.560 gm. Gold contents of which were 7.080 grm, 0.480 gm presumably the weight of the stone. This document was sent by the OP on 2.8.2004 as a bill and there was a demand for the labour charges. The complainant has also placed on record one affidavit from a jeweller in Jalandhar, which shows that stone was bought from this jeweller but it does not show whether stone bought was the same as the one studded in the ring given to the OP. It is also undated and no bill is attached to show the cost of that stone. The OP has stated that he was willing to compromise and give back the ring provided the complainant gives labour charges. The complainant has not been able to prove conclusively that the work was not finished within the time stipulated or as to what loss he has suffered. Also there is nothing on record to shows that the quality of stone is different from the one originally given with the ring. It is a well known fact that the person who suggests existence of fact, the burden of proving that fact lies on him. This is confirmed in the case of Lahore Opticals v. S.K. Tulsi, Appeal No. 1544/SC of 2002 dated 31.3.2004, of Honble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., Lucknow, published in III (2004) CPJ 223=2004 CTJ (CP) 565 SCDRC UP. The complaint, therefore, fails and dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own cost of litigation.?
6. Perusal of the order of the District Forum and the statement of Sandeep Sharma leaves us in no doubt that the State Commission has misinterpreted the statement and the contents thereof while reversing the order of the District Forum, which is a fair order in the given facts and circumstances. The impugned order, therefore, is liable to be set aside. In these circumstances, we allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned order of the State Commission and confirm the order dated 21.12.2005 passed by the District Forum. The complaint of the respondent thus stands dismissed with the parties bearing their own costs.
Revision Petition allowed.