Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President—Learned Advocate appearing vice counsel for the appellant, prays for adjournment. Respondent, who is present in person, opposes the request and her contention is that she has been postponing a surgery operation of herself, which has been advised by the doctors, because of the pendency of this appeal. So, the request for adjournment is turned down and we proceed to dispose of the matter.

2. We have heard Advocate appearing vice counsel for the appellant as also the respondent, who is present in person.

3. Appeal is directed against the order dated 22.2.2012, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it by respondent Adubala Vijaylakshmi, has been allowed and it (the appellant) has. been ordered to refund the price of defective jacket (amounting to Rs.1,871) and also to pay Rs. 1,000 as damages and Rs.500 as litigation expenses.

4. Respondent purchased a jacket for her daughter on 31.1.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,871. A few days later, when the daughter of the respondent went to the market wearing the said jacket, it started dri