A seller is not liable for defects in goods they did not manufacture and must be proven to have guaranteed quality.

Per say - Justice Sunita Yadav, President.

By this appeal the appellant/opposite party assails the order dated 13.1.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Katni (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 100/2016, whereby the : 2 ;

District Commission has allowed the complaint by the respondent/R.P. Babeley (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

2. Briefly put, the facts of the case, as narrated by the complainant are that on 21.5.2016, he bought some cloths for his children, from appellant, worth Rs.3,790/- and paid the full amount in cash. The appellant assured the complainant that the cloths are of good brands and of good quality. After two days, when the cloths were soaked in water for prewash the jeans colour bleed and spoil a frock also and when the complainant approached the appellant regarding this complaint and requested for exchange of the cloths, the appellant refused the request of the complainant. Therefore, alleging deficiency on the part of the appellant the complainant has filed the aforesaid complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The appellant/opposite party resisted the complainant and in his reply before the District Commission admitted that he sold the cloths to complainant but according to appellant he has not given any guarantee of the cloths, as he is not the manufacturer of them he just sold the cloths. According to appellant he is not responsible for the quality and for the bleed of colour of the jeans pant. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of the appellant the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Commission after appreciating the evidence filed by the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay cost of the jeans Rs.1105/- to the complainant with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of complaint. Rs.2,000/- has been awarded for mental and physical agony with Rs.1000/- as costs. Hence this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for appellant argued that the impugned order is perverse and against the settled principle of law. The District Commission has failed to consider the documents and evidence of the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the relief claimed by the appellant be granted in his favour.

6. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant argued that the impugned order is in accordance with the evidence and settled principle of law. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard and perused the record.

8. The perusal of record indicate that the complainant has filed Exhibit P-1, which is the receipt/cash memo dated 21.5.2016 and according to complainant, Exhibit P-1 pertains to the jeans and frock, which he bought on 21.5.2016 from the shop of appellant. However, in Exhibit P-1, details of articles sold have not been mentioned, only amount of Rs.1105/- is mentioned on it. Therefore, the learned District Commission has erred in holding that this bill/voucher, Exhibit P-1 is in respect with the jeans pant and frock, which were purchased by the complainant. It is also apparent that no photographs of jeans and frock have been filed by the complainant to prove that the colour of jeans pant bleed, which spoil the frock also. Even the District Commission observed that the complainant has failed to prove that the colour of jeans pant bleed, which spoiled the frock while washing them together. Thus, the finding of the District Commission are self-contradictory.

9. The learned District Commission has also failed to consider that the appellant is not the manufacturer of the cloth. Therefore, he is not responsible for any defect in the cloth sold by him. The complainant failed to