Punjab

Sangrur

CC/424/2016

Darshan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Friends Communications - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.S. Ratol

10 Nov 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                  

                                                                  Complaint no. 424                                                                                         

                                                                  Instituted on:   13.06.2016                                                                                   

                                                                   Decided on:    10.11.2016

 

Darshan Singh son of Shri Gurbachan Singh resident of Ghanaur Jattan, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1. Friends Communications, New Bus stand, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil & District Sangrur through its Proprietor.
2. Lava International Ltd. A-56, Sector -64, Noida 201301 UP through its MD.   

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT   :                   Shri S.S.Ratol, Advocate.                      

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.1   :                Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.2   :               Shri Sandip Goyal, Advocate

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Darshan Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased  a cell phone KKT Trio from the OP No.1 vide bill number 260 on 05.06.2016 for an amount of Rs.2200/- .  On the next day of very purchase of the mobile set, the complainant came to know that the said model is available in the market for Rs.1400/- and another dealer showed him the price on the box as Rs.1700/- as MRP.  Similarly on Amazon site, the said model was available for an amount of Rs.1490/- .  In this way, the OP No.1 charged  the excess amount  from the complainant and OP  no.1 flatly refused to return the excess amount. Thus, alleging unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

 

i)      OPs be directed to refund Rs.800/- ,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.33000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP No.1, it has been admitted that OP no.1 charged Rs.2200/- i.e. Rs.1700/- for mobile phone plus Rs.450/- for memory card and Rs.50/- lamination from the complainant but due to inadvertence the OP no.1 has not mentioned about the memory card and lamination  and the complainant got the benefit of the same and file the present complaint only to grab the money from OP No.1.

3.             In reply filed by the OP No.2, it has been stated that if the OP no.1 had charged the amount more than the MRP then it will not create any liability on OP no.2. It is denied that the OP No.1 is the authorized dealer  of OP no.2

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence. On the other hand , OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP1/1, Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP2/1 and closed evidence.

5.             After perusal of the documents placed on record and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that main point of controversy in the present complaint is with regard to excess charging of price amount from the MRP of the mobile set in question by the OP No.1. Since, it is specific case of the complainant that the excess amount was charged by the OP no.1 then we feel that the matter in dispute is between the complainant and OP No.1 and there is no concern with the OP no.2.

6.             The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that the OP No.1 charged excess price amount from the MPR of the mobile set in question. The complainant has alleged that OP no.1 has charged Rs.2200/- for the purchased mobile set whereas the MPR of  the mobile set in question is only Rs.1700/-.  To support his version the complainant has produced on record copy of cash/ credit memo number 260 dated 05.06.2016 Ex.C-4 and photostat copy of cardboard box wherein the mobile set was packed. From the perusal of the copy of the mobile set box we find that on it, in the  column Maximum Retail Price  Rs.1700/-

( inclusive of all taxes)  is mentioned. Moreover the OP No.1 has  also admitted  in the written reply that  he charged Rs.2200/- from the complainant but it includes  Rs.1700/-  for mobile phone and Rs.450/- for memory card and Rs.50/- lamination and due to inadvertence the OP No.1 has not mentioned about the memory card and lamination in the bill but we feel that the OP no.1 has concocted a false story to escape from its liability. The OP No.1 has also not produced on record any document/proof which supports the version of the OP No.1  rather from the perusal of the cash/credit memo of the mobile set in question  it clearly shows that the OP No.1 has charged Rs.2200/- for the mobile set in question.

7.             In view of the above discussion, we  find that the OP no.1 has charged excess price amount  from the MPR of the mobile set in question which is unfair trade practice on its part.  Accordingly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP no.1 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.500/- which was charged in excess. The OP No.1 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- being compensation on account harassment  and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. We further direct the OP no.1 to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- being unfair trade practice in the Consumer legal Aid Account maintained in this Forum.

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from  the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                 

                Announced

                November 10, 2016

 

 

 

      ( Sarita Garg)                                    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                        

                         Member                                            President

 

 

 

BBS/-