State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pradeep Kumar vs Gian Pustak Bhandar on 20 December, 2011
H.P.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
----
DATE OF DECISION: 20.12.2011.
FIRST APPEAL NO.20/2010.
Pradeep Kumar son of Shri Om
Parkash, C/O Pt. Padam Dev Comlex Ch. No.411, Commercial Complex, Phase-II, The
Ridge, Shimla.
Appellant.
Versus
M/S Gian Pustak Bhandar,
Pustak Vikrata, Arya Samaj Market, 191/3, Lower Bazar, Shimla, H.P.
Respondent.
Present: Mr. S.R. Sharma, Advocate, for the
appellant.
Ms. Parul Negi, Advocate, vice Counsel for
respondent.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 122/2010.
M/s. Gian Pustak Bhandar,
Pustak Vikrata, Arya Samaj Market, 191/3, Lower Bazar, Shimla (H.P) through its
Proprietor Sh. Arunesh Arya.
Appellant/Respondent.
Versus
Sh. Pardeep Kumar son of Sh.
Om Parkash, C/O Pt. Padam Dev Complex, Ch. No.411, Commercial Complex,
Phase-II, The Ridge, Shimla (H.P.)
Respondent/Complainant.
Present: Ms. Parul Negi, Advocate, vice Counsel for the
appellant.
Mr. S.R. Sharma, Advocate, for
the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh (Retd.),
President.
Honble Mr. Chander
Shekhar Sharma, Member.
Honble Smt. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh (Retd), President (Oral).
By this common order we are disposing aforesaid two appeals as both of them are directed against the same order, i.e. order dated 25.11.2009 of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla.
2. One appeal is filed by the complainant and other by the opposite party.
3. Relevant facts may be noticed. Pradeep Kumar, appellant in First Appeal No.20/2010, filed a complaint against respondent-M/s. Gian Pustak Bhandar, who is appellant in First Appeal No.112/2010 alleging that he had purchased two books for Rs.105/- from the respondent-Pustak Bhandar for his brother on exchangeable basis and when his brother went with these books to the College, his teacher told that these books were not part of the syllabus. Complainant-Pradeep Kumar then went to the opposite party-M/s. Gian Pustak Bhandar and asked for exchange of books with another book, the cost of which was Rs.145/-, and offered to pay the difference in price. The opposite party is alleged to have not only refused to exchange the books but also humiliated the complainant and hurled abuses. So the complainant claimed price of the books purchased by him and also asked for award of compensation for harassment and deficiency in service.
4. Respondent denied having humiliated or abused the complainant. It also denied that books were sold on exchangeable basis. It was stated that all goods are sold by the opposite party on non-exchangeable basis and it is written in bold words at the foot of every bill/cash memo that the goods once sold are not returnable.
5. Learned Forum concluded that though there was no material on record indicating that the books were sold with an understanding that the complainant could exchange the same, yet the respondent was bound to return the price of the books once the complainant wanted to exchange the same.
So, the Forum ordered refund of the price of the books to the complainant on his returning the books.
6. Appeal No.20/2010 has been filed by Pradeep Kumar, complainant. He says that the learned Forum has erred in not awarding any damages for alleged harassment and deficiency in service. Second appeal has been filed by the opposite party. His grievance is that when the books had not been sold on exchangeable basis, Forum could not have ordered the return of the price of the books.
7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. There is absolutely no evidence in support of the complainants version that the books were sold to him by the opposite party with an understanding that he would have the option to exchange the same. Learned Forum has also observed like that. Now, when there was no assurance by the opposite party that the books would be exchangeable, opposite party cannot be said to have committed an act of deficiency in service by refusing to exchange the books or to return the price of the books. Therefore the alleged act of the opposite party cannot be said to give rise to a consumer dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1) (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Reason is that neither he has committed any act of deficiency in service nor can he be said to have supplied defective goods. Consequently, appeal filed by the opposite party, i.e. First Appeal No.122/2010 is allowed and the complaint is dismissed. Appeal filed by the complainant, i.e. First Appeal No.20/2010 becomes infructuous in view of the acceptance of First Appeal No.122/2010 and consequential dismissal of the complaint.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.
December 20, 2011.
( Justice Surjit Singh ) (Retd.) President ( Chander Shekhar Sharma ) Member /BS/ ( Prem Chauhan ) Member.