IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Monday the 18^th day of July, 2011

Filed on 12.04.05

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

in

C.C.No.56/05

between

Complainant:-                                                                Opposite Party:-

Sri.Abdul Rahman Kunju.M,                                               The Owner,

Kadoorpadeettathil,                                                            Chacko & Sons,                      

Kanichanalloor, Muttom.P.O.,                                            Electrical Shop,                       

Harippad, Karthikappally Thaluk,                           Mavelikkara-1.

Alappuzha District.                                                 (By Adv.C.Vidhu)

                                                                  O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)    

The complainant on 28^th March 2005 purchased electrical commodities for his son in law from the opposite party. His son was opportuned to coming across the bill of the said articles, and impressed upon the complainant that the cost of each of the items was far from reasonable. The opposite party charged excess rate on every articles so purchased. The complainant on 29^th March 2005 rushed to the opposite party’s shop, and enquired the opposite party as to the premise of charging unwarranted rate. The response of the opposite party was one of indifference and recalcitrance. The complainant sought quotation from several other similar shops for the material commodities. Surprisingly enough, it was unfolded that the price the opposite party got hold of from the complainant was too much. Thus, when the complainant procured electrical goods for an amount of Rs.3,750/-(Rupees three thousand seven hundred and fifty only) the opposite party swindled around Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) from the complainant. Being aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.

1. Notice was sent. The opposite party turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the opposite party establishment has a prolonged footing in the particular business scenario. Since its inception, the same was enjoying the goodwill and recognition from the people at large. The articles sold to the complainant were of ISI mark which bear testimony to its absolute high quality. At the time of the purchase in question, the complainant was accompanied with his wireman who is well versed as to the excellence of the particular commodities. Each and every product was sold out to them at their option and to their utmost satisfaction. The quotation, the complainant produced presumably from other shops is incomprehensive. The opposite party had to face any sort of credibility crisis never before, the opposite party asserts. The complaint must have been the outcome of the instigation by spiteful people who are envious of opposite party's repute and growth. The complaint is malicious without bonafide. The complainant is entitled to no relief. The complaint is only to be dismissed, the opposite party vociferously argues.

2. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1 and that of his son as PW2, and the documents Exbts. Al to A3 were marked. On the side of the opposite party, the opposite party was examined as RW1, and the documents Exbt. B1 to B2 were marked.

3. Taking into account the contentions of both the parties, the questions that arise for consideration before us are as follows:-

(a) Whether the opposite party imposed disproportionate charge to the electrical articles the complainant bought from his shop?

(b) If that be so, the cost and compensation?

4. Concededly, the complainant purchased the electric commodities from the opposite party. The core of the complainant contention is that the opposite party charged undue price for the same. To substantiate complainant's said contention, the complainant produced the invoice from other shops which shows lesser charge for similar articles. The opposite party forcefully contends that the articles supplied by it are of superior quality and not that of the same pointed out in the invoices produced by the complainant.  According to the opposite party, even products belong to similar brand may differ in their quality.  In this manner, the electric items which perceptibly appear similar may be at variance in their excellence and as such, in price tag. Bearing these contentions in mind, we effected a careful analysis of the materials placed on record by the parties. We meticulously perused Exbts. A1 to A3.  At the first blush itself, we feel that as to the quality of the commodities figured in different quotations; it is not comprehensible which ever is of superior quality or otherwise. To put it mildly, going by the invoices produced by the complainant, the difference in the quality of diverse articles is practically difficult to identify with. It is crucial to notice that the complainant has not adopted any steps to establish the authenticity of the invoices placed on record. It appears that the authors of these quotations have not been caused to mount the witness box. It cannot also be ruled out, as alleged by the opposite party counsel that in the context of stiff competition in the business field, some or other similar business firm may issue quotations of lesser price tag, with the specific view to harm the reputation of the opposite party. Thus viewing from every perspective, it strongly appears that the complainant has not let in compelling or convincing evidence to substantiate or the least bit to support his contentions. We regret, we have no course open but to accept the version advanced by the opposite party. Needless to say the complainant case must fail.

In the light of the discussions herein above, we are of the considered view that the complainant case does not merit acceptance and the same is liable to be dismissed, and is dismissed.

In the result, complaint stands disposed accordingly. The parties are left to bear with their own cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 18^th day of July, 2011.

.                                                                                   Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan

Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi           

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1                -           Abdul Rahman Kunju (Witness)

PW2                -           A.Abdul Salam (Witness)

Ext. A1            -           The copy of the Payment Bill dated, 28.03.2005

Ext. A2 series  -           The copy of the Quotation dated, 29.03.2005 (2 Nos.)

Ext. A3            -           The copy of the Debit dated, 29.03.2005

Evidence of the opposite party:-

RW1                -           Jacob Mathew (Witness)

Ext. B1 -           The copy of the Invoice dated, 26.01.2005

Ext. B2 -           The copy of the Credit Bill dated, 21.09.2004

// True Copy //

    By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- k.x/- 

Compared by:-