Advocate for the complainant- None.
Advocate for the O.P.No. 1 - Sri B.K.Nanda & Associates.
Advocate for the O.P.No.2 -Sri A.K.Kanta.
Advocate for the O.Ps 1 & 2 -None.
Date of filing of the case -09.12.2013
Date of order of the case -14.11.2014.
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
In the matter of an application u/s.12 of the C.P.Act,1986 filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the O.Ps.
2. In short the complain petitioner is Soumya Dip Saraf is the father of Aparna Rajlaxmi Saraf reading in class-II, of Kendriya Vidyalaya-II, Bolangir being a minor, father made complain ;before the Forum alleging post admission of his daughter, the O.P.2 advised the complainant to purchase the dress material (Uniform) from O.P.1 on dated 17.11.2013,a jacket in paying Rs 585/- vide retail invoice No.151 dt.17.11.2013.
3. It is averred, in post purchase of the jacket, come to know besides the O.P.1, the shop named Venus Supplier also sales the uniform, jacket as per the KVC dress code. In enquiry, it is come across, the same brand, size and material texture jacket is available against Rs 400/- purchased and procured the receipt. In contacting the first O.P.1, on the discrepancy of price, responded that the price are not charged or fixed as to the sweet will of the customer, rather the will of the shop owner prevails. He bluntly refused to refund the excess price taken. Praying to direct the O.P.1 to refund the excess price, taken amounting Rs 185/- along with interest thereon and any other relief to which the forum deems fit and proper may also be granted in favour of the complainant for the ends of justice.
4. Relied on retail invoice of Apsara Dresses and Venus Suppliers and two nos of photographs and an affidavit along with affidavit of Proprietor of Venus Suppliers.
5. On acknowledgment of notice,O.P.1 appeared and filed the version contending that there is no cause of action for the present case. The O.P.1 Apasara Dresses buys the best quality materials and sold the same at a fixed price of Rs 585/- not made compromise with quality. The product of Venus Supplier sold for a sum of Rs 400/- is of inferior quality, without verification the both jackets, charging of excess price can not be said as true.
6. No question arises on refunding of Rs 185/- as the price is fixed one and opposite party can not be forced to sell his material at a lower price than the market price. It is totally false to say that the O.P.1 is giving pocket money and charging excess to meet the end. The O.P.1 never show any rude behaviour nor indulged in unfair trade practice. The consumer case is not maintainable in the eyes of law and prayed the case may kindly be dismissed with cost.
7. The O.P.2 in appearing contended that this O.P has never advised any one to purchase the required dress from specific shop, rather the complainant has been asked with to send his kid to the school in proper dress as per the dress code, which has been notified in the school’s notice board as prescribed by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. This O.P has neither directed the complainant where the dress was available nor advised or forced to purchase the same from O.P.No.1 .The allegation of making pocket money to O.Ps 2 and 4, is got up story. The petition’s content is false and fabricated, so there is no chance of suffering of the complainant mentally and financially. Praying to drop the case as there is no cause of action and the complainant be penalized for false implication of the O.P.2 to meet the end of justice. Filed one affidavit, deponent being Niranjan Satpathy and a citation Executive Engineer –Vs- Dr.Chandra Bhan) 1991(11) CPJ 653, Circular, dress code copy and latter written note of argument.
8. The O.P.3 appeared and filed the version averring the cause of the action for the present case arose within the jurisdiction of this forum and O.Ps are carrying their business at Bolangir having their offices and daughter of the complainant namely Aparna Rajlaxmi Saraf has taken admission in Class-II, at Bolangir Kendriya Vidyalaya-II. Also stating the complainant has never brought the matter to the knowledge of the O.P.3 being the chairman of the Kendriya Vidyalaya-II, Bolangir and further submitting that there is no cause of action against the O.P.3 as such the complaint petition filed is not maintainable. Praying the petition filed against the O.P.No.3 is liable to be dismissed.
9. Extensively heard the complainant and learned counsels of the O.Ps. The O.Ps argued vehemently on their stand and perused the record in extreme watch of sense.
10. The complainant grouse was that he purchased the prescribed Uniform design from the shop “Apsara Dresses” Main Road, Bolangir,dt. 17.11..2013, one jacket costing to Rs 585/- and issued with a retail invoice Sl.No.151 dt.17.11.2013 which admitted and assailed with the assert that the shop tenders best quality material and sales at fixed price .As the price is fixed one, the same can’t be warranted to be lower price and also no way allows to forcefully refunding.
11. Per contra, the complainant has purchased similar jacket from Venus Suppliers, Malpada, Bolangir with price tag of Rs 400/- and issued with a cash memo, bearing Sl.No.1244,which shows similar size, quality brand, colour, design and texture item, raising the question of huge margin gap.
12. In satisfaction of the forum, we direct the complainant to produce the garments procured. Both the jackets in production found. The both manufactured as “Arvind” brand, 32 size and competently of equal quality as to naked eye. In such a circumstances trader giving false or misleading facts disparaging the goods or trade of another person is negligence or commission of offence u/s.2 ( r) (x) of C.P. Act is “Unfair Trade Practice” that is amply established and substantiated.
13. The other aspect the O.P.1, in its pleadings para-3 and 5 adamantly asserts, the price is fixed one, sales at a fixed price and remotely telling a fixed price shop. Even we come across the content of Fixed Price shop is already in the sign board and interior wall of the shop. Further it is also marked no refund is permitted without any directives for the customers, by the owner which is not permitted under the law. On the outset we can say as per the law there is no fixed price shop or fixed price rate to be declared in the product. It is to be categorically Maximum Retail Price, beyond which the trader cannot think up to sale and otherwise the price is bargained. Even bargain must not be at its sweet will rather be fair and dignified. In such context the price under the sub-sec (ix) of Section 2( r) reads- materially misleads the public concerning the price at which a product or like products or goods or services, have been or are ordinarily sold or provided, and for this purpose a representation as to price shall be deemed to refer to the price at which the product or goods or services has or have been sold by sellers or provided by suppliers generally in the relevant market. .. .. is made.
14. Again sub section 2(a)&(b) of Section 2(r) reads:-
(a) a price that is stated in any advertisement to be a bargain price, by reference to an ordinary price or otherwise, or
(b) a price that a person who reads, hears or sees the advertisement, would reasonably understand to be a bargain price having regard to the prices at which the product advertised or like, products are ordinarily sold.
15. Hence it is illegal and non prescribed under the law to write “Fixed Price shop” and this may be written as “Fair price shop” having much elasticity and flexibility to be thrust on bargain of price, In absence of bargain the MRP is to termed as basic price to offer and then the fixed price and MRP (Maximum Retail Price) price will hold same status without any difference, rather means to be same and equivocal.
16. On the other platform- Apasara Dresses has issued one retail invoice and “Venus Supplier” a cash Memo in process of their sales execution. On this point, a simple explanation is that the invoice shows the customer how much is owed for on item or service performed, while a receipt shows the customer how much was paid and is proof of what was sold or done. The very explanation says, the sale only permits a cash receipt or cash memo not an ‘Invoice which stand to how much it owned. Issuing an ‘Invoice is not legally sanctified as per business etiquette as the cash memo tends to.
17. The Venus Suppliers” issued a cash memo which amply justify the transaction is bonafide as per the law. We also come to know in submission that the prescribed uniform is only supplied by “Apasara” and “Venus” ready made garment vending shops but “Apasara Dresses although sales the school uniform but usually the parents used to visits the shop and the manners of business etiquette by the shop is too short of performance standards so also the sales boys.
18. The cash memo supplied by the Venus Suppliers although lacks date of issuance, other information in the receipt is tend to the vindication that same is believable & bonafide. We considerably found the amount of Rs 158/- is excessively collected without caring with any law and also not refunded in repeated demand. The charging is illegal and commissions deficiency in all aspect.
19. The other O.Ps 2,3 and 4 of this case is waived /discharged of their respective negligence and deficiency in want of non substantiation and cogent & plausible reason thereto, on production by the complainant.
Hence ordered;-
The case is allowed on contest. The O.P.1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) only to the complainant, as compensation towards non refunding the excess amount thereby negligence tending to loss, harassment and mental agony sustained within 20 days of this order along a sum of Rs 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only towards litigation expenses incurred, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of purchase till realization.
(II) The O.P.1 (Apasara Dresses) herein after directed to remove “wording” content ”Fixed Price shop” from its sign board forthwith this order and the order is extended to the other sister concerns named prefixed with Apasara, as we deem fit that they are one entity and continuing the business under one Apasara banner one label head within the jurisdiction of this Forum and further directed to allow refund, exchange and make substitution of transacted product without any demur or murmuring to the customer.
(III) And it is further directed the bench has reserve the option to visit the shop in discrete intervals to take stock of the compliance of order and prevention of exploitation of unidentified numbers of consumers going to be victimed for no fault of them in the way as descripted.
(IV) The case against O.Ps 2 to 4 is dismissed and they will bear their own cost.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014.
I agree. I agree.
(P.Samantara)
( G.K.Rath) ( S.Rath) PRESIDENT.
MEMBER. MEMBER.
