- (1.) THIS appeal arises out of a decision rendered by the State Commission Bihar in a complaint filed before it by the respondent-herein putting forward the grievance that he had purchased a Tractor from the appellant for which he was made to pay a price in excess of what was reasonable and fair having regard to the price fixed by the manufacturer/distributor for the said tractor and that he had been put to loss and hardship on account of the failure of the appellant-dealer to carry out the third free service for the tractor. Though the appellant filed a written statement disputing his liability for payment of any amount to the complainant, he remained ex-parte on the date of final hearing of the case. The State Commission issued a notice to the manufacturer, M/s Eicher Hira Tractor Company, seeking information about the correct price of the tractor and its accessories as on 16-11-1987 which was the date of supply of the tractor to the complainant. A statement was filed on behalf of Eicher Hira Tractor Company showing the correct price of the tractor and its accessories and a representative of the said company appeared before the State Commission and gave evidence The appellant who did not appear before the State Commission on the date of the final hearing of the case did not adduce any counter-evidence to rebut the material made available to the State Commission by Eicher Hira Tractor Com' pany. Relying on his evidence and the statement filed by him on behalf of the manufacturing, company, the State Commission came to the conclusion that the appellant had realised from the complainant an excess amount of Rs. 3 563. 25 by way of cost of tractor and its accessories. In the light of the aforesaid finding, the State Commission directed that the appellant should refund to the complainant the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,563. 25 with interest at 16 percent per annum. In addition, the State Commission also directed that a further sum of Rs. 8,000/-should be paid by the appellant "as compensation for the harassment and loss suffered by the petitioner. "
(2.) THE appellant appeared in person before us and presented his arguments. THE respondent appeared through Counsel but since he wished to supplement the arguments of his Counsel, we permitted him to make his submissions in person also. After hearing both sides we have come to the conclusion that on the evidence available before it which consisted of only the data furnished by the representative of the Eicher Hira Tractor Company who explained to the Commission, the price chargeable for each of the items mentioned in the bills issued by the appellant, the State Commission was justified in directing that a sum of Rs. 3,563. 25 should be paid by the appellant to the respondent-herein with interest at 16 per cent by way of refund of excess price collected from him. This direction issued by the State Commission will accordingly stand confirmed. The position in relation to the further direction issued by the Commission that the appellant should pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- as compensation for harassment and loss suffered by the complainant is however totally different. While Sec 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (read with Section 18) does empower the State Commission to award compensation for any injury or loss suffered by a consumer on account of the negligence of the opposite party the claim must be substantiated by sufficient evidence and the compensation has to be assessed not arbitrarily but on the basis of well accepted legal principles. Unfortunately, in this case the order of the Commission does not contain any discussion of the question of the alleged harassment or loss nor is it disclosed as to how it quantified the compensation to be awarded to the complainant. On going through the record we find that hardly any material was available before the State Commission to support the claim for compensation on the ground of harassment and loss. Such being the case, we constrained to set aside the direction of the State Commission that the appellant should pay to the complainant (respondent) a sum of Rs. 8000/-as compensation for harassment and loss suffered by the complainant. A contention was raised before us by the appellant that the State Commission had acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the complaint since the value of the subject matter did not exceed Rs. 1 lakh. We are not however inclined to set aside the order of the State Commission in its entirety on this ground because, firstly, the factum of the adjudication of the complaint by the State Commission has not, by itself, resulted in any miscarriage of justice, and secondly, the appellant did not appear before the State Commission on the date of final hearing and press this objection but chose to remain ex-parte, even though he had filed written arguments on an earlier date wherein this point was incidentally mentioned. In the result we allow the appeal to the extent of setting aside the direction of the State Commission that the appellant should pay a sum of Rs. 8000/- to the respondent (complainant) as compentation for the harassment and loss suffered by the complainant. In other respects the appeal is dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs. If in enforcement of the order of the State Commission the respondent has recovered from the appellant the amount of Rs. 8000/- awarded as compensation or any part thereof the same will be refunded to the appellant by the respondent within one month from today. Order pronounced on may 15, 1989 . ;