O R D E R Sri.K.Vijayakumaran, President. This is a complaint seeking a direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.11328/- alleged to have been illegally collected from the complainant, compensation and costs. (2) The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows. On 18.06.2008 the complainant has purchased various items from the opposite party’s Renil Glass House for his own use for Rs.42,213/-. Which includes Greenland 18 mm plywood 8x4 size 16 pieces and Greenland 6 mm 8x4 size plywood 4 pieces among other items. The opposite party has collected Rs.26,560/- for the 16 pieces of 18 mm plywood thereby charging Rs.1,660/- for each 18 mm plywood. In respect of Greenland 6 mm plywood 8x4 size 4 pieces the opposite party has collected 4,608/- at the rate of Rs.1,152/- per pieces. After purchasing the said above items the complainant reliably come to know that the opposite party has realized exhorbitant price from the complainant for the plywood. The complainant through an agent submitted quotation on 21.06.2008 in respect of the same items. In the said quotation the opposite party has priced only Rs.1088/- for 18 mm Greenland plywood. Similarly in respect of 6 mm plywood the opposite party has priced only Rs.608/- per piece. Hence the opposite party has (3) collected an excess amount of Rs.9,152/- in respect of 18 mm plywood and Rs.2,176/- in respect 6 mm plywood. The conduct of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. The opposite party filed version contenting, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite party has no relation with the complainant nor there is any transaction between them. The complainant has not purchased any items from the opposite party. The bills and quotations produced are issued to one Babu, Grand wood workers, Pallimukku, Kundara who is a regular customer of opposite party and a contractor of wood works. On 18.06.08 the said Babu requested for a quotation and items shown in the quotation is one of high quality. It is known to everybody that the plywoods are of various types manufactured by various companies, and the price will vary according to the quality of the plywood. On 18.06.2008 the said Babu purchased high quality plywoods and the price given to (4) him is below the MRP. At the time of purchasing the plywood the opposite party has issued bill to the purchaser. The quotation given to the said Babu on 21.06.2008 is of law quality material. The record produced by the complainant here is from the said Babu, Grand wood work which were issued to him by the opposite party. The complainant has filed the complaint with the intention of degrading the business of the opposite party. There is no truth in his complaint and the complainant has not produced any records or bills or quotations of any other company or other retail outlets to show that excess amount has been collected from the complainant by this opposite party. The opposite party is issuing bills for each and every items purchased from his shop. No cash has been received from the complainant by the opposite party. Bills are regularly issued to the said Babu by the opposite party after receiving the cost of the items sold. The opposite party has collected only the lowest price for the goods purchased by the above said Babu. The complainant has no manner of right to claim any amount from the opposite party. Hence the opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint. (5) To evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts P1 to P6 on the complainant’s side and DW1 and DW2 and Exts D1 to D5 on the side of the opposite party. Points for consideration are: (1) Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party? (2) Relief and costs. Points The case of the complainant is that he has purchased plywood and other articles from the shop of the opposite party Renil Glass House on 18.06.08 for which the opposite party has collected exorbitant price. According to PW1 Ext P1 is a bill and P2 is a quotation would clearly show the price variation which issued by the opposite party. The case of the opposite party is that Exts.P1 and P2 are quotations issued to one Babu, who is one of his customers and that Ext.P1 is not a bill issued to the complainant as contended by the complainant. It is argued by the complainant (6) that there is huge difference in the rates quoted for 18 mm plywood of the size 8x4 in Ext P1 and P2 are different. While in Ext P1 the price of Greenland 18 mm plywood 8x4 size for 16 pieces comes to Rs.26,560/-. the rate for the same plywood in Ext.P2 is only Rs.17,408/-. Similarly the price for Greenland 8x4 6 mm plywood four pieces is Rs.4,608/- The price in Ext P2 for the above plywood for six pieces is Rs.3,648/- only. It is argued that from Ext.P1 and P2 it is clear that the opposite party has collected exorbitant price from the complainant. The contention of the opposite party is that the plywood referred to in Exts.P1 and P2 are of different quality which is the reason for the difference in price. According to the opposite parties the price of the plywood in Ext.P1 is high as the same is of superior quality whereas the price of plywood shown in Ext.P2 is of inferior quality. In fact, PW1in cross examination at Page No.3 has admitted that plywoods may be of different quality. It is to be noted that in Ext.P1 the name of plywood is shown as Greenland plywood (7) whereas in Ext.P2 the name of plywood shown is Greenland marine plywood. If the plywoods in Ext.P1 and P2 are of same quality the word marine would not have been there in Ext.P2. So these two plywoods can not be said to be of same quality and therefore it is quite probable that there would be difference in their price. In cross examination at Page 3 PW1 has admitted that plywood and marine plywood are different. In further cross examination at page 3 PW1 has admitted that the plywood manufactured by Greenland company may be of different quality. To use his own words “ Greenland company #164;¨#162;ˆ¥#162;¤« ˆ¤#186;#164;»¡plywood ƒ#169;¿¡ (Q) ƒ#174;.(A). He further admitted that “” #161;#161;¹¢® †¤« #162;ˆ¥#162;¡Ã®.”” When superior quality plywood is purchased naturally the price also will be high. DW1 has stated that Ext.P2 was in respect of interior quality plywood issued to DW2 as he requested such a quotation. Merely because two rates are quoted in Ext.P1 and P2 for plywoods in the absence of cogent evidence that the price is in respect of the same plywood it cannot be said that it amounts to unfair trade practice. Cogent evidence in this regard absent in this case. (8) It is worth pointing out in this context that the complainant has no case that the opposite party has quoted charges above the MRP for each item of plywood. The complainant has also not produced the MRP of the plywood. A dealer can sell plywood for any price not exceeding the MRP. Even if ply woods are sold at different prices to different persons so long as the price does not exceed the MRP it can not be said that there is any unfair trade practice. From the evidence now before us we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Points found accordingly. In the result, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Dated this the 31st day of August 2010. K.Vijayakumaran :Sd/- Adv.Ravi Susha :Sd/- R.Vijayakumar :Sd/- // Forwarded by Order // Senior Superintendent (8) INDEX List of witness for complainant PW1 - K.Rajan List of documents for complainant P1 - Cash Receipt dtd: 18.06.08. P2 - Quotation dtd: 21.06.08. P3 - Advocate Notice dtd: 26.08.08. P4 - Acknowledgment card P5 - Reply Notice P6 - Quotation dtd: 21.06.08 List of witness for opposite party DW1 - Pappachan DW2 - Babu List of documents for opposite party D1 - Advocate Notice sent by the complainant D2 - Photocopy of quotation D3 - Quotation dtd: 21.06.08. D4 - Photocopy of cash bill | 
