BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 155

Date of Institution : 28.5.2010

Date of Decision : 18.10.2010

Deepak Jain Advocate s/o Sh. Parvesh Jain r/o Sethian Mohalla Mandir Street, Faridkot District Faridkot.

...Complainant Versus

Easy Day Opposite J.B.T. Institute Circular Road, Faridkot through its Manager/ Managing Director/Prop.

...Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Bikramjit Singh Brar counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Ashu Mittal counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party for directing it to return the excessive amount received by him for the purchase of Revive Starch 50-G Batch No. 890108800089K regarding which bill for Rs. 9.75 Ps has been issued instead of Rs. 8/- and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is an Advocate in District Courts, Faridkot. On 25.5.2010 he purchased some items from the opposite party including Revive Instant Starch 50 Gms bearing batch No. 890108800089-K and an amount of Rs. 8/- has been printed on this item but opposite party received Rs. 9.75 Ps and have also issued the bill of Rs. 9.75 Ps for this item. In this way, the opposite party received Rs. 1.75 Ps in excess from the complainant. Despite repeated requests to opposite party no one is hearing to the complainant. Thereafter, he approached the opposite party and requested them to do the needful but the opposite party putting off the complainant on one pretext or the other refused to return the amount at last, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 31.5.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite party filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the opposite party is a reputed business concern having branches all over India and they works in very transparent manner and opposite party is determined to provide household goods to public on the price less than the market price. The product as mentioned was of Rs. 10/- MRP which has been sold to the complainant after charging 25 paise less. The complainant saved Rs. 1.19 on the shopping of that day. On merits, it is admitted that the opposite party has sold the item shown in the bill. It is denied that print rate of batch No. 890108800089-K is Rs. 8/-. The opposite party charge even less than actual price and not excessive. The complainant never approached the opposite party, otherwise there is no reason for not hearing genuine complaint of any consumer because of consumers are lifeline of the opposite party and opposite party cannot survive by not hearing the genuine complaints of the consumers. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, original bill dated 25.5.2010 Ex.C-2, starch pack of 50 Gms Ex.C-3 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sunil Kumar Ex.R-1, affidavit of Amol Seth Ex.R-2 and closed their evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file. Our observations & findings are as under.-

8. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that by charging excess amount from the complainant qua the Revive Starch, the opposite party has indulged in unfair trade practice and as such deterrent order is needed to discourage this practice.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party however submitted that items shown in the bill Ex.C-2 were sold out by the opposite party but the item produced in envelope is not the same item which was sold by the opposite party to the complainant under the bill in question. Batch number of the item produced in the Forum is different from similar item as noted in the bill Ex.C-2. Therefore, opposite party cannot be made liable in view of the allegations in the complaint.

10. We have keenly considered the rival contentions in the light of material on record. Batch number of item produced in envelope is found to be apparently at variance with the similar item as noted in bill Ex.C-2. Batch number of the former is 8901088000895 whereas the batch number of similar item entered in the bill Ex.C-2 is 890108800089K. It is not the case of the complainant that the opposite party has intentionally and deliberately noted different batch number of the item in question in bill Ex.C-2. In our opinion, it was the headache of the complainant to check the batch number of the items he purchased and to get the batch number of any of them corrected at the time of collecting bill in respect of those items. Since it has not been done so the item produced before the Forum to saddle the opposite party with compensation and litigation expenses besides return of the original price of the item remained to be proved. In this view of the matter complaint filed by Deepak Jain is devoid of merits and as such the same is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 18.10.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)