STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/6/A/721/2019 null SHRI BALAJI VASTRALAYA, PRESENT ADDRESS - RAILWAY ROAD, ROHTAK.

NCDRC,HARYANA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus LUXMI PRESENT ADDRESS - H.NO. 2031/10, GALI NO. 15, RAM GOPAL COLONY, SONEPAT ROAD, ROHTAK. NCDRC,HARYANA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

T P S MANN, PRESIDENT MR. S . P . SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER MANJULA, MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI KARTAR SINGH MALIK-1, COUNSELFOR THE APPELLANT.

FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI SACHIN KAUSHIK, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.721 of 2019 Date of Institution:19.08.2019 Date of Reserve:10.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 20.01.2025 Shri Balaji Vastralaya, Railway Road, Rohtak, District Rohtak through its proprietor.

…..Appellant Versus Ms.Luxmi, D/o Sh.Wazir Singh Tomar, R/o # 2031/10, Gali NO.15, Ram Gopal Colony, Sonepat Road, Rohtak, Haryana.

..…Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member Mrs.Manjula, Member Present:- Shri Kartar Singh Malik-1, counselfor the appellant.

Shri Sachin Kaushik, counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

Delay of 98days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2. Appellant-Opposite Party (OP),has filed the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for challenging the order dated 04.04.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak whereby complaint filed by complainant/respondent herein Ms. Luxmiwas allowed with directions:

“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that respondent shall refund the amount of Rs. 15000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) deposited by her with the respondent and shall also pay a sum of Rs.15000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) as compensation and Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.”

3. The brief facts of the case as set out in the complaint are that complainanthad booked lehngaChuni from Shri Bala Ji Vastralaya (Appellant) for her marriage occasion. On 07.12.2015, the complainant gave an amount of Rs.15,000/- in advance to the shopkeeper. On 14.12.2015, the complainant visited the shop for receiving the lehnga chunni, but,OP denied due to non-availability. She requested the OP to return the advance payment of Rs.15,000/-, but, OP avoided her to refund the amount. Faced with this situation, she got issued legal notice to the OP on 15.11.2017, but, OP failed to reply. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant prayed that complaint be allowed.

4. Notice being issued, OP appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections about mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, maintainability of complaint, concealment of true facts etc. and sought dismissal of the complaint.

On merits, it was submitted that complainant purchased Lehnga Chunni from the OP for a sum of Rs.27,800/-, out of which, the complainant had paid only Rs.15,000/- and an amount of Rs.12,800/- remained due towards her. The complainant assured to pay the same upto 14.12.2015 and receive the lehnga after necessary fittings. It was further submitted that on 14.12.2015, she received the lehnga from OP and checked the same and was fully satisfied from the quality and thereafter, the complainant assured the OP to pay the amount within one week. The complainant has no right to seek refund of the amount. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

On 08.03.2019, the OP failed to appear before the District Consumer Forum, hence, OP was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 03.04.2019 passed by the District Consumer Forum.

5. After hearing counsel for the complainant, learned Dist