Punjab

Sangrur

CC/200/2018

Rakesh Kumar Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

EESL (Energy Efficiency Services Limited) - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Udit Goyal

31 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM,                                        SANGRUR.

               

                                               

                                                Complaint No.  200

                                                Instituted on:    23.04.2018

                                                Decided on:       31.08.2018

 

Rakesh Kumar Goyal son of Late Sh. Charanji Lal Goyal, resident of Prem Basti, Sangrur.

                                                                …Complainant.

                                Versus

 

1.     EESL ( Energy Efficiency Services Limited) Near Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Ranveer Club Road, Opposite Red Cross Office, Sangrur through its Manager.

 

2.     EESL ( Energy Efficiency services Limited), Registered Office: 4th Floor, Sewa Bhagwan, R.K.Puram New Delhi, through its Managing Director.

 

3.     Ledvance Private Limited, 459B, EPIP, HSIIDC, Industrial Estate, Kundli, District Sonepat ( Haryana) through its Managing Director.   

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Udit Goyal, Adv.

For the OPs No.1&2  :       Shri Sharad Sharma

For OP No. 3    :               Exparte

 

 

 

Quorum:   Sarita Garg,  Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

ORDER

                        Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

 

1              Rakesh Kumar Goyal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased  three 9W LED Bulbs from the OP no.1 for his domestic use  vide invoice number 3308 dated 24.01.2018 and paid an amount of Rs.280/-.  The complainant came to know that  the OP no.1 charged Rs.93.33ps vide said invoice dated 24.01.2018.  The complainant immediately brought the matter into the notice of the OP no.1 and requested him to refund the amount of Rs.70/- which is charged in excess  but OP no.1 did not do so. The OPs charged excess price of Rs.23.33 i.e. Rs.70/- from the net price. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.70/-  charged alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization, pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay an amount of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2,  it is admitted that the complainant  vide invoice number 3308 dated 24.01.2018 had purchased four LED bulbs  of 9Watt  for an amount of Rs.280/- .  He was rightly charged Rs.280/-  as can seen that 3+ quantity is written in the invoice which  means that the complainant received more than three bulbs. Had the complainant been charged  Rs.70/- in excess  from what he was supposed to pay, the complainant should have  objected at that instance only, as he was fully aware that the cost of each LED bulb is Rs.70/-  and same is printed in the invoice also. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs no.1 and 2.

3.             The record shows that OP no.3 did not appear despite service and as such OP no.3 was proceeded exparte on 04.06.2018.

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed evidence. On the other hand OPs have tendered documents Ex.OPs1&21/1 and closed evidence. 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

6.             It is an admitted fact on record that the complainant purchased LED  bulbs  of 9 Watt vide invoice number 3308 dated 24.01.2018 for an amount of Rs.280/-.  The main  point of controversy in the present case is that  the OPs charged excess amount of Rs.23.33 paise on each bulb  as the price of bulb is mentioned as Rs.70/- on the bulb.  The complainant has specifically stated that he had purchased three  LED bulbs  of 9watt from the OP no.1 vide invoice number 3308 dated 24.01.2018 from OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.280/-  and as such the OP no.1 had charged Rs.93.33 paise for each bulb whereas the  price mentioned on the bulb is Rs.70/- and as such OPs charged Rs.23.33 paise  in excess from the complainant.

7.             On the other hand, the OPs have stated that the complainant  vide invoice number 3308 dated 24.01.2018 had purchased four LED bulbs  of 9Watt  for an amount of Rs.280/- and as such he was rightly charged Rs.280/-  as  can be seen that 3+ quantity is written in the invoice which  means that the complainant received more than three bulbs.

8.             From the perusal of the documents placed on the file by the parties and after hearing the arguments of the parties, we find that the complainant has  produced on record  copy of invoice number 3308 dated 24.01.2018 which is Ex.C-2 on record. From the perusal of said invoice Ex.C-2  we find that  the complainant purchased three  bulbs for an amount of Rs.280/- from the OPs which clears  from the column "quantity" wherein it has been mentioned 3+ and in column "value"  it is mentioned Rs.280/-. It shows the price of each bulb is Rs.93.33 instead of Rs.70/- as price of the bulb mentioned on it. It clearly shows that the OPs have charged an amount of Rs.23.33/- in excess on each bulb from the complainant. As such the  OPs have charged Rs.70/- in excess from the complainant. The OPs have not produced any document on record which proves the version of the OPs regarding   sale of four bulbs. So, we feel that the complainant has fully proved his  case rather the Ops have miserably failed to prove their case.   

9.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct OPs  to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.70/- as charged in excess from the complainant and also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  

10.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records.

                Announced.

                August 31, 2018.

 

                                                        (Sarita Garg)

                                                           Presiding Member

 

 

                                                             

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member