STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 483 of 2012

Krishna Kumar, Son of Lalan Prasad Gupta, Resident of Dumai Gargh, Police Station- Manjhi, District Saran at Chhapra

                                                                                                                                                 … (Opposite Party)/Appellant

Versus

Anil Kumar, Son of Late Thakur Prasad Gupta, Resident of Mohall- Mauleshwari Chowk, Police Station- Siwan (Town), District- Siwan (Bihar)

                                                                                                                                                    …. Complainant/Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Satya Prakash

Counsel for the Respondent: None

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 19.05.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed on behalf of appellant/Opposite Party for setting aside the judgment and order dated 12.09.2012 passed in Complaint Case no. 219 of 2012 passed by Ld. District Consumer Forum, Siwan whereby and whereunder the District Forum has directed appellant to replace or repair the sold speaker and further directed payment of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation within two months from the date of order, failing which complainant shall be entitled for interest @15% p.a.
2. Briefly stated the case of complainant as disclosed in Complaint petition is that he purchased on 24.04.2012 from M/s Intex Store computer multimedia speaker 2.1 consisting of three speakers on making payment of Rs. 1,190/- and one headphone of Elegant company of Rs. 250/- Total- 1,440/- for which receipt was granted by the shop owner to the complainant.
3.  The grievances of the complainant is that instead of granting money receipt, the shop owner provided estimated bill of the purchased articles which amounts to unfair trade practice. It is further stated that the cost of the headphone as printed is Rs. 210/- however Rs. 250/- was paid by the complainant which also amounts to unfair trade practice.
4. Appellant /Opposite Party appeared and filed its written statement denying all the allegations. It was further stated that all the three speakers were functional and no extra price was charged for headphone. The warranty is provided by the Intex company and same has not been made party. The complainant purchased headphone of Elegant for Rs. 250/- and received cash memo for the same and the allegation that he purchased mega headphone is incorrect and has wrongly affix the sticker of mega headphone on the cover of Elegant head phone. Any complaint with respect to functioning of speaker was to be made to the authorized service centre of company as warranty is provided by the company and not the shop owner. The complainant was issued estimated bill due to link failure and complainant has collected the original bills after two days.
5. The District Consumer Forum after hearing both the parties and considering the materials available on record and after due appreciation of evidence found the allegations made by appellant to be correct and held that providing estimated bill in place of cash memo in respect of articles sold to complainant and charging more price than the printed price  amounts to be proved which amounts to  deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice and accordingly, directed appellant to replace/repair the sold speaker and further imposed Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.
6. The counsel for the appellant submits that the District Consumer Forum had not appreciated the evidence on record in its true perspective and has wrongly concluded that extra amount has been charged by the appellant against the printed price and appellant had agreed to replace/repair the speaker if same was found defective as such there was no occasion to impose compensation and cost of litigation on the appellant.
7. Having heard the counsel for the appellant and considering the materials available on record and on perusal of order as impugned in this appeal, this Commission does not find any error, infirmity or perversity in the order and the District Consumer Forum has recorded its finding after proper and due appreciation of evidence on record, accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.  

(Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                                                                             (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                                                                              President

Md. Fariduzzama