- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 25.11.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Parties, as under:
"As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and the OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 5,10,800 to the complainant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. OPs are further directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 30,000 as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony, along with Rs. 10,000 as costs of litigation, failing which, they shall pay the awarded amount, along with penal interest @ 12% per annum, till the amount is actually paid, besides paying the cost of litigation at Rs. 10,000."

(2.)THE facts, in brief, are that the complainant (now respondent), induced by the Opposite Parties (now appellants), agreed to purchase good quality white marble from them, and paid a sum of Rs. 50,000, in cash, out of the total estimate of Rs. 7,60,800, prepared by Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2. Thereafter, the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs. 2,70,000 and Rs. 4,40,800, through cheques on 11.9.2010. The Opposite Parties, supplied the marble vide bill No. 22514 dated 11.9.2010. According to the complainant, the Opposite Parties, supplied him the cheap quality marble, @ Rs. 100 per square feet, though charged from him, the price of marble @ Rs.300 per square feet. When the complainant approached the Opposite Parties, to change the marble, being of poor quality or refund the remaining amount, they failed to do so. It was stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
(3.)THE Opposite Parties, in their reply, pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable, before the District Forum, as, complicated questions of fact and law, were involved in the same, which could only be decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The factum of purchase of marble and payment thereof, by the complainant, was admitted by the Opposite Parties. It was denied that the marble supplied to the complainant, was of inferior quality. On the other hand, it was stated that the marble, which was supplied to the complainant, was of good quality, cost of which was settled @ Rs. 300 per square feet. It was further stated that, however, the bill @ Rs. 100 per sq. feet, was prepared, on the asking of the complainant. It was further stated that since, the marble in question, had been cut into pieces, by the complainant, therefore, the same could not be replaced, being unusable. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.