The case of the complainant is as follows. He had purchased a Nokia Mobile Hand Set (Model No.Nokia. 5030) for an amount of Rs. 2700/- from the 1^st opposite party which was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party. But on enquiry it was found that this model hand set was only Rs. 2000/- in the market. The opposite party had collected Rs. 700/- excess from the complainant. There was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. He had purchased another mobile hand set from the 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs. 2050/-. The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for several times for refund the excess amount collected from the complainant. Hence this complaint.

 

 

The notices were served with the opposite parties. The 2^nd opposite party not yet appeared they choose to remain absent. Hence 2^nd opposite party set-expartee. The 1^st opposite party appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. There was no transaction between complainant and the opposite party. He had not purchased any mobile hand set from the 1^st opposite party on 9-12-09 or any other date. The bill produced by the complainant was not in the name of the complainant. The name shown in the bill was one Mr. Shaji. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

 

            The complainant examined as PW1 and produced documents which are marked as exhibits A1 to A3. The 1^st filed proof affidavit and produced one document which is marked as exhibits B1.

 

            Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party illegally collected Rs. 700/- from the complainant.  According to him this amount was excess than the open market. The 1^st opposite party has taken a contention that they have collected only the MRP permitted by the Nokia Company. According to them they have no direct connection with the complainant in this purchase as the complainant produced the purchase bill was not in his name. The complainant submits that he told his name at the time of issuing the bill but the opposite party written in the bill the name as Shaji. The purchase was not admitted by the 1^st opposite party. However the purchase bill produced by the complainant (A1). From the available evidence it can be seen that the 1^st opposite party has collected Rs.700/- excess from the complainant. The complainant produced another bill

 

 

 

A2 it can be seen that Rs. 700/- was excess than in the A1 bill. So we have no reasons to

 dis-believe the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.          

In the result the complaint is allowed as follows:

1)      We directed the opposite parties to refund Rs.700/- to the complainant and pay Rs. 750/- as compensation for inconveniences and pay Rs. 750/- as costs of these proceedings. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order not complied within one month the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order and till payment. Both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.

           

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                                Sd/-

 

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President             Sd/-

 

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                                Sd/-

 

 

1.A1 is the purchase bill dtd 9-12-2009

2. A2 is the purchase bill dtd 19-12-2009

3. A3 is the copy of print out from inter net.

 

 

1.      B1 is the copy of price list with effect from 4-12-2009 to 31-12-09.

 

By Order,