Haryana

StateCommission

A/1009/2016

DEEPA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANUVRAT COMMUNICATION - Opp.Party(s)

Y.D.KAUSHIK

23 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 1009 of 2016

Date of Institution: 24.10.2016

Date of Decision : 23.11.2016

 

Ms. Deepa d/o Sh. Charan Singh, resident of H. No.FCA-162, Garg Colony, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.     

                                                                             Appellant-Complainant

 Versus

 

M/s Anuvrat Communication, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Main Bazar, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.

                                      Respondent- Opposite Party

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Yash Dev Kaushik, Advocate

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

AWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated September 5^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short, ‘District Forum’) whereby the complaint was allowed. Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“Resultantly, the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund excess amount of Rs.160/- charged from the complainant and to pay Rs.500/- on account of mental agony and harassment as well as Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order……...”

2.      Deepa-complainant purchased mobile phone from M/s Anuvrat Communication-opposite party for Rs.5350/- vide bill No.18602 dated June, 25^th 2014 (Exhibit C-1).  The complainant noticed that the MRP of the mobile phone was Rs.5190/- whereas the opposite party charged Rs.5350/- from her.  She asked the opposite party to refund excess amount of Rs.160/- but to no avail.  Hence she filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act before the District Forum.

3.      The Opposite party, in its written version, denied the averments of the complaint and pleaded that they did not charge any excess amount from the complainant rather charged the amount on account of phone cover and screen guard. 

4.      The District Forum accepted the complaint and issued directions to the opposite party as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.      Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant has come up in appeal for enhancement of compensation.

6.      Indisputably, the opposite party charged excess amount of Rs.160/- from the complainant, which the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund. Besides this, the District Forum awarded Rs.500/- on account of mental agony and Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  This being so, the complainant has been adequately compensated and as such, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.   

 

Announced 23.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK