The main legal point established is that the service of notice to the OP must comply with Regulation 10 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, and failure to do so may result in the OP being condemned unheard.

ORDER

Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member - 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. 2,200 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. 1,899 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 p.m. However, the OP asked the complainant to collect the trouser after alteration at 4 p.m. The complainant visited the showroom at around 4.30 p.m., and was surprised to know that OP asked her to come again at 8 p.m. 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 ex parte.

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

8. Mr. Sahil, brother of Ms. Neha Sharma, in appeal No. 280/2010 submitted that while pa