ORDER : P.S. Rana, President 1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 23.01.2019 passed by learned DCF/DCC in consumer complaint No. 44/2018 titled Hardev Singh v. M/s. Aradhya Enterprises. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Shri Hardev Singh filed consumer complaint pleaded therein that opposite party deals in sale of miscellaneous goods including toys for children. It is pleaded that in the month of November 2017 complainant purchased a toy i.e. Helicopter from opposite party in consideration amount of Rs. 1050/- (One thousand fifty). It is further pleaded that opposite party did not issue bill and toy in question was found defective in nature. It is further pleaded that matter was reported to opposite party and opposite party was requested to supply non-defective toy i.e. Helicopter or to return consideration amount but opposite party did not return consideration amount and also did not supply non-defective toy i.e. Helicopter and committed deficiency in service and committed unfair trade practice. Complainant sought relief to the effect that opposite party be directed to refund amount of Rs. 1050/- (One thousand fifty). In addition complainant sought relief of compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that opposite party did not sell electronic toys. It is further pleaded that opposite party deals in soft toys like teddy bears, dolls and allied items like cycles, tricycles etc. It is further pleaded that opposite party did not sell toy in question i.e. Helicopter to complainant as alleged. It is further pleaded that opposite party also did not issue any sale bill to complainant. It is further pleaded that present consumer complaint has been filed by complainant just to extort money from opposite party. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted allegations mentioned in consumer complaint. 5. Learned DCF/DCC allowed consumer complaint and ordered opposite party to refund amount of Rs. 1050/- (One thousand fifty) to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint i.e. 12.01.2018 till actual payment. Learned DCF/DCC further ordered that opposite party would pay compensation to complainant to the tune of Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) for mental agony and harassment. 1050/- (One thousand fifty) to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint i.e. 12.01.2018 till actual payment. Learned DCF/DCC further ordered that opposite party would pay compensation to complainant to the tune of Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) for mental agony and harassment. Learned DCF/DCC further ordered opposite party to pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 2000/- (Two thousand) to complainant. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned DCF/DCC opposite party filed present appeal before State Commission. 6. We have heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant and we have also heard respondent in person and we have also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 8. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party deals in sale of miscellaneous goods including toys for children. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party is running a shop in Ward No. 1 near HRTC Workshop Una H.P. There is further recital in affidavit that on 27.11.2017 deponent purchased a toy i.e. Helicopter from opposite party for gifting the same to his nephew on his birthday in presence of his son namely Puneet Jambla. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party received consideration amount of Rs. 1050/- (One thousand fifty) for sale of toy in question from deponent. There is further recital in affidavit that when deponent reached home then toy in question was found defective and was not working properly. There is further recital in affidavit that on 28.11.2017 deponent alongwith his son namely Puneet Jambla went to return toy in question to opposite party. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party told that toy in question was not properly charged and opposite party took toy in question back for necessary repair/charging. There is further recital in affidavit that on next day i.e. 29.11.2017 deponent alongwith his son Puneet Jambla again approached opposite party but opposite party did not repair toy in question and toy was not functioning properly. There is further recital in affidavit that on next day i.e. 30.11.2017 complainant asked opposite party either to correct defect in toy or to replace it. There is further recital in affidavit that on next day i.e. 30.11.2017 complainant asked opposite party either to correct defect in toy or to replace it. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite refused to return costs of toy to deponent. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party kept toy in question with him and even after several visits to the shop of opposite party by deponent opposite party did not supply new toy and also did not refund consideration amount. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party committed deficiency in service and also committed unfair trade practice. 9. Complainant also filed corroborative affidavit of Puneet Jambla in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party deals in sale of miscellaneous goods including toys for children. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party is running a shop in Ward No. 1 near HRTC Workshop Una H.P. There is further recital in affidavit that on 27.11.2017 father of deponent purchased a toy i.e. Helicopter from opposite party in consideration amount of Rs. 1050/- (One thousand fifty). There is further recital in affidavit that no bill was issued by opposite party. There is further recital in affidavit that on reaching home toy in question was found defective and was not working properly. There is further recital in affidavit that on 28.11.2017 deponent alongwith his father went to the shop of opposite party and requested opposite party to repair toy in question or to refund consideration amount. There is further recital in affidavit that thereafter again on 29.11.2017 deponent alongwith his father approached opposite party but opposite party did not repair toy in question and toy was not functioning properly. There is further recital in affidavit that thereafter again on 30.11.2017-deponent alongwith his friend namely Manish Kumar asked opposite party either to correct defect in toy or to replace it. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party kept toy in question in his shop and refused to "refund consideration amount. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party committed deficiency in service and also committed unfair trade practice. 10. Complainant also filed corroborative affidavit of Manish Kumar in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party deals in sale of miscellaneous goods including toys for children. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party committed deficiency in service and also committed unfair trade practice. 10. Complainant also filed corroborative affidavit of Manish Kumar in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party deals in sale of miscellaneous goods including toys for children. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party is running a shop in Ward No. 1 near HRTC Workshop Una H.P. There is further recital in affidavit that on 30.11.2017 deponent and his friend namely Puneet Jambla went to the shop of opposite party. There is further recital in affidavit that Puneet Jambla asked opposite party either to correct the defect in toy in question or to replace toy in question. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party kept toy in question in his shop and refused to refund consideration amount. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party told that toy in question is China product and opposite party does not issue any bill relating to items i.e. China product. 11. Opposite party filed affidavit of Suresh in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party does not sell electronic toys. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party deals in soft toys like teddy bears, dolls and allied items like cycles, tricycles etc. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant did not approach deponent for buying electronic helicopter. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent has not sold electronic Helicopter to complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent always issued bill to buyer and complainant has filed present consumer complaint just to extort money from deponent. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that sale bill of toy i.e. Helicopter in question was not produced by complainant before learned DCF/DCC and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that controversial facts could be proved by way of affidavits of eye witnesses or by way of documentary evidence. In present matter complainant has proved facts to the effect that complainant purchased toy in question from opposite party in consideration amount of Rs. 1050/- (One thousand fifty) by way of corroborative affidavits of eye witnesses namely Puneet Jambla and Manish Kumar. 13. In present matter complainant has proved facts to the effect that complainant purchased toy in question from opposite party in consideration amount of Rs. 1050/- (One thousand fifty) by way of corroborative affidavits of eye witnesses namely Puneet Jambla and Manish Kumar. 13. Puneet Jambla eye witness has specifically stated in his personal affidavit that toy in question was purchased by complainant from the shop of opposite party in consideration amount of Rs. 1050/- (One thousand fifty). Puneet Jambla has further proved facts by way of affidavit that toy in question was defective in nature and was not working properly and same was returned back to opposite party for repair or for refund of consideration amount of toy in question. Opposite party did not send any interrogatory to Puneet Jambla. No reason assigned by opposite party as to why opposite party did not send any interrogatory to Puneet Jambla eye witness. Adverse inference is drawn against opposite party for non-sending interrogatory to Puneet Jambla eye witness. Affidavit filed Puneet Jambla eye witness is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of State Commission. There is no reason to disbelieve affidavit filed by Puneet Jambla eye witness. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that Puneet Jambla eye witness has hostile animus against opposite party at any point of time. 14. Similarly complainant has proved facts that he has returned defective toy in question to opposite party in presence of Manish Kumar independent eye witness. Manish Kumar independent eye witness has specifically stated in his personal affidavit placed on record that toy in question was returned to opposite party but opposite party kept toy in question in his shop and refused to return consideration amount and told that opposite party does not issue bill relating to product manufactured by China. Personal affidavit filed Manish Kumar independent eye witness is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of State Commission. Opposite party did not send any interrogatory to Manish Kumar independent eye witness. Hence adverse inference is drawn against opposite party for non-sending interrogatory to Manish Kumar independent eye witness. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that Manish Kumar independent eye witness has hostile animus against opposite party at any point of time. 15. Opposite party did not send any interrogatory to Manish Kumar independent eye witness. Hence adverse inference is drawn against opposite party for non-sending interrogatory to Manish Kumar independent eye witness. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that Manish Kumar independent eye witness has hostile animus against opposite party at any point of time. 15. State Commission is of the opinion that affidavit filed by Suresh on behalf of opposite party is not sufficient to rebut affidavits filed by complainant Hardev Singh, Puneet Jambla eye witness and Manish Kumar independent eye witness because opposite party did not file corroborative affidavit of any independent eye witness. It is well settled law that when two views are possible then view favourable to consumer should be adopted by Consumer Authority. See 2018(1) CLT 468 NC titled Union of India through GM Western Railway v. Smt. Vinaya Vilas Sawant. 16. Even CCTV footage was sought by learned DCF/DCC from opposite party relating to sale transaction from shop of opposite party between 25.11.2017 to 30.11.2017 from 12:00 PM to 5:00 PM but learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party has given written statement before learned DCF/DCC on dated 17.04.2018 that opposite party could not produce recording of CCTV footage camera installed in the shop of opposite party. Plea of opposite party that opposite party did not sell any toy i.e. Helicopter to complainant is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that order of learned DCF/DCC directing opposite party to refund amount of Rs. 1050/- (One thousand fifty) to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint i.e. 12.01.2018 till actual payment is contrary to laws and contrary to prove facts is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that order of learned DCF/DCC is based upon personal affidavits filed by (1) Hardev Singh (2) Puneet Jambla (3) Manish Kumar. State Commission is of the opinion that in view of corroborative affidavits filed by Puneet Jambla and Manish Kumar independent eye witnesses it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to interfere in order of learned DCF/DCC directing opposite party to refund amount of Rs. State Commission is of the opinion that in view of corroborative affidavits filed by Puneet Jambla and Manish Kumar independent eye witnesses it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to interfere in order of learned DCF/DCC directing opposite party to refund amount of Rs. 1050/- (One thousand fifty) to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint i.e. 12.01.2018 till actual payment. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that order of learned DCF/DCC directing opposite party to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) to complainant for mental harassment is contrary to laws and contrary to prove facts is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that learned DCF/DCC has granted equitable compensation to complainant for mental agony and harassment and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to interfere in compensation order passed by learned DCF/DCC relating to mental agony and harassment. 19. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that order of learned DCF/DCC directing opposite party to pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs. 2000/- (Two thousand) is contrary to laws and contrary to prove facts is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant has engaged Advocate before learned DCF/DCC and has paid Advocate fee and other expenses and State Commission is of the opinion that learned DCF/DCC has granted equitable litigation costs to complainant and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to reduce litigation costs ordered by learned DCF/DCC. 20. Submission of complainant in person that order of learned DCF/DCC is in accordance with laws and in accordance with proved facts and same does not warrant any interference from State Commission is decided accordingly. State commission is of the opinion that order of learned DCF/DCC is in accordance with laws and in accordance with proved facts and same does not warrant any interference from State Commission. Point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 21. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal filed by appellant is dismissed. Order of learned DCF/DCC is affirmed. Parties ate left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 21. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal filed by appellant is dismissed. Order of learned DCF/DCC is affirmed. Parties ate left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Certified copy of order be sent to Learned DCF/DCC forthwith for information and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Functioning of State Commission remained non-operative during winter vacation w.e.f. 11.01.2020 to 23.02.2020 and functioning of State Commission also remained non-operative w.e.f. 24.03.2020 to 15.04.2020 due to Nationwide lock down on account of Corona virus. Hence present appeal is disposed of today. F.A. No. 141/2019 is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.