This case coming on 14.11.2014 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri D.V. Sastry, Advocate for the complainant and Sri G. Mohan Murali, Advocate for the opposite parties and having stood over to this date for consideration, this Forum pronounced the following:-                                                    

O  R  D  E  R

(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)

            The complainant claims compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

1          The allegations in the complaint in brief are that he purchased spare parts for Bazaz vehicle from opposite party for Rs.3,021/-.  On verification he found opposite party sold the spare parts over and above the MRP.  When questioned the opposite party was evasive.

2          On the same day i.e. On 09.06.2012 he purchased the same spare parts from DJM Motors, Rajahmundry who are authorized dealers of Bazaz vehicles.  On verification he found the dealer at Rajahmundry sold spare parts as per MRP rates.  Thus according to him 1^st opposite party intentionally altered the prices on the company label.  Thus complaining now he claims damages for deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  

3          The 1^st opposite party filed counter adopted by 2^nd opposite party where in they denied the material allegations leveled against the 1^st opposite party and further according to them the complainant is not a consumer and if he has any groves he must approach Civil Court.  Further according to them the complainant has not filed any material showing changing or altering MRP on the goods and the 1^st opposite party is only a dealer where as DJM Motors, Rajahmundry is authroised dealer.  The petitioner is also did not join Sai Motor Plaza who sold the spare parts to him.  It is also their case there is no material to show the DJM motors sold the  goods for MRP only.  Thus contending they sought dismissal of the complaint.

4          Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. If so, whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party?
3. If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the damages claimed by him?

5. Point No.1:           It is the version of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party sold the spare parts over and above MRP.  As the very contention of the complainant is about 1^st opposite party selling the goods over and above MRP definitely it comes under the purview   of the consumer.  Hence the point is answered accordingly.

6. Point No.2:           To sustain his case the complainant apart from filing chief affidavit exhibited 3 documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A3.  Ex.A1 and A2 are two cash bills of even date showing the complainant purchasing 11 items from Sai Motor Plaza, Kakinada.  Ex.A3 is bill issued by DJM Motor for 4 items on the same day of Exs.A1 & A2.

7          A bare perusal of Exs.A1 & A2 would indicate that under Ex.A3 the complainant purchased only 4 items whereas under Exs.A1 & A2 as many as 11 items were purchased.  Even the description of the items is also not mentioned in these exhibits A1 & A2.  Only one item in Ex.A3 which is described as shoe break boxer AR is tallied with one of the items in Ex.A1. Thus the version of the complainant he purchased the self same items under Ex.A3 from DJM Motors is bereft of any material.  Further more there is no indication whatsoever that DJM Motors sold the goods for MRP only.  In fact, the complainant failed to furnish any affidavit from DJM motors to support his version.  Thus what is manifestis there is no iota of evidence to sustain the version of the complainant.  On the other hand, the 1^st opposite party filed his chief affidavit re-iterating in their written statement.  Hence under these circumstances there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.    Hence this point is answered against the complainant.

8. Point No.3:           In view of the finding rendered under point No.2 the complainant is not entitled for any damages or compensation.  Thus this point is also answered against the complainant.

9          In the result, the petition is dismissed with Rs.1,000/- [Rupees one thousand only] costs to opposite parties 1 and 2 each.

Typed by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 08^th day of December, 2014

Sd/- xxxx                                              Sd/- xxxx                                            Sd/- xxxx

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For complainant :  None                                         For opposite party :  none

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For complainant:-

Ex.A1 09.06.2012    Cash bill 30983 issued by Sai Motor Plaza, Kakinada

Ex.A2 09.06.2012    Cash bill No. 30984 issued by Sai Motor Plaza, Kakinada

Ex.A3 09.06.2012    Cash bill issued by DJM Motors, Rajahmundry

For opposite parties:-       NIL

Sd/- xxxx                                              Sd/- xxxx                                            Sd/- xxxx

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT