Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

2.        Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant alleged about purchase of 36 packets of wall and floor tiles vide Tax Invoice No.296 dated 21.2.2007 and paid the price @ Rs.195 per packet. Complainant alleged inter alia that the OPs have taken extra price by printing MRP over the cover. As the OP allegedly did not listen to his request to refund extra amount, complainant stated to have filed the complaint.

4.        Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that OP Nos. 2 and 3 were set ex parte but OP No.1 who is the present respondent No.1 contested the matter by denying all allegations. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum without giving cogent and clear reason has dismissed the complaint. He cited Para – 4 of the impugned order which is manifestly erroneous and as such he submitted to remand the matter for fresh hearing so that the complainant can adduce evidence and justify his case.

5.        Considered the submission of learned counsel for   the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

6.        The observation of learned District Forum at Para – 4 of the impugned order is placed below:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            Perused the Tax Invoice Sl.No.296 dt. 21.2.2007, wherein the dealer has described quantity, price per unit, value of goods, rate of tax, amount of tax and total amount of  the articles sold by him. MRP printed over the cover is not the correct price and the amount described in the tax invoice is the price of the goods, MRP  has been printed by the manufacturer. Assuming for the sake of argument, the MRP has been tampered by the dealer and had taken excess price, then it is the manufacturer, who will explain the same. In this case neither the manufacturer was examined nor appeared. Therefore, there is no evidence to believe that the OP No.1 has charged excess price. It is seen from the Bill No. 162 dt. 29.1.2007 of Singhal Converters Pvt.Ltd. that he had taken Rs.95.63 paisa (inclusive VAT) for one packet of Landmark Ceramic floor tiles which is less than the price charged by the OP No.1. It is a common knowledge that price depends on the quality and quantity of goods. There is no evidence on record to show that the quality of both the products are same although the brand is same (Landmark). Therefore, it is the manufacturer, who will explain what types of tiles he is supplying in the name of Landmark. The complainant has cited so many decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble State Commiss