ORDER

Taken up through video conferencing.

1.     This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘Act 1986’), challenging the Order dated 22.06.2015 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tripura (‘State Commission’) in F.A. No. 24 of 2012, arising out of the Order dated 07.09.2012 in C.C. No. 42 of 2010 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (‘District Forum’).

The Petitioner, Mr. Ratan Ch. Banik, Proprietor of Radio Mechanical Centre, was the Opposite Party before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Opposite Party’.

The Respondent, Mr. Dhananjoy Ghosh, was the Complainant before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainant’.

2.     Heard arguments from learned Counsel for the Opposite Party and learned Amicus Curiae for the Complainant.

Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 07.09.2012 of the District Forum, the impugned Order dated 22.06.2015 of the State Commission and the Petition.

3.     The dispute relates to a defective amplifier (costing Rs. 22,000/-) sold by the Opposite Party (Proprietor of ‘Radio Mechanical Centre’) to the Complainant.

The purchase (worth Rs. 22,000/-) was made in 2009, the litigation before the District Forum commenced in 2010, we are now in 2020.  

4.     The District Forum, vide its Order dated 07.09.2012, allowed the Complaint. The Order was passed on contest, after the affording of opportunity to the Opposite Party, after the appraising of the evidence.

The Opposite Party was ordered to replace the amplifier with a new set of similar model, if available, in case a similar set is not available, then with any other set of the same value, failing which to return the price of the amplifier (Rs. 22,000/-) to the Complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint till the payment is made; the Opposite Party was also ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 2,000/-.  

5.     The Opposite Party filed Appeal before the State Commission; the State Commission dismissed the Appeal. 

6.     The State Commission has passed a speaking Order.  

It has concurred with the District Forum (Para 24: “We have gone through the impugned judgment and found that the Ld. District Forum proper considered the evidences, the facts and circumstances of the case and finally arrived at the conclusion and passed the impugned judgment which, according to us, calls for no interference by this Commission and as such, it is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is also liable to be dismissed.”).

The Award made by the District Forum, as upheld by the State Commission, appears just and equitable in the facts of the case.

No palpable crucial error in appreciating the evidence is visible; no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is visible.

Interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is not warranted.

7.     The Revision Petition, being ill-conceived and bereft of merit, is dismissed. The State Commission’s Order of 22.06.2015 is confirmed. The Award made by the District Forum, as upheld by the State Commission, is sustained.

8.     The Registry is d