STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA APPEAL NO.A/24/491 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.CC/26/2023 Mrs. Mani Narayan (Through Ms. Varashree Narayan)

Residing at 21, Guide Building, 6th Floor, 16, L.D. Ruparel Marg, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006. …Appellant/ Org. Complainant V/s The Proprietor Azamin Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., 274/290, Nagdevi Street, Ground Floor, Mumbai – 400 003. …Respondent /Org. Opponent BEFORE:

Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma – Presiding Member Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi - Member APPEARANCE For Appellant : In Person For Respondent : None

JUDGMENT

(18/07/2025)

Per : Hon’ble Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member :

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, challenging the judgment and order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai, in Complaint No. CC/26/2023, whereby the consumer complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. The grievance raised in the complaint related to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices allegedly committed by the respondent in connection with the sale of a heating gun product, which, according to the appellant, was not only sold at a price far in excess of the prevailing market rate but was also supplied without a necessary accompanying gas regulator, rendering the product unusable.

3. The District Commission, despite the matter proceeding ex parte against the respondent and the evidence being uncontroverted, dismissed the complaint on the ground of insufficiency of proof. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

4. The facts in brief are that on 17.10.2022, the appellant visited the respondent’s retail store to purchase a heating torch for gifting purposes. She was informed that the Penta brand heating gun was available and that, although the necessary gas regulator was not presently in stock, the same would be made available for pickup the next day if she made full advance payment. Believing this oral assurance, the appellant paid ₹1,416/- inclusive of GST, as per cash memo no. CG0241/12. However, when she visited the shop the next day, the respondent refused to provide the gas regulator and even denied having made any such assurance. When the appellant offered to return the unused product and sought a refund, the respondent refused, citing a printed term on the invoice that "goods once sold will not be taken back."

5. It is the appellant’s case that the heating torch was unusable without the promised attachment, and despite the product being intact and returned within 24 hours, the respondent acted high-handedly, refused to accept legal notice, and misled her.

6. Additionally, the appellant alleged that she discovered through another local trader named Bharat Light House, where the same model of heating torch was sold in the local market for ₹578.20 (inclusive of GST), nearly ₹838 less than what she had paid. Relying on this, she contended that the respondent charged above MRP and engaged in unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

7. Upon filing of the complaint before the District Commission on 16.02.2023, notice was issued to the respondent and was returned with the postal endorsement “refused” dated 15.01.2024. Accordingly, the matter proceeded ex parte.

8. The Appellant / original complainant had filed her affidavit of evidence along with supporting documents, including the original invoice, price quotation from Bharat Light House, postal tracking proof, photographs, and legal citations. However, the District Commission dismissed the complaint by observing that there was no conclusive evidence about the oral assurance regarding the gas regulator, no established MRP on the packaging, and lack of clarity on whether the product sold by Bharat Light House was of the same make and specification.

9. The District Commission further held that since the buyer voluntarily purchased the product without MRP and accepted the i