Punjab

Sangrur

CC/334/2016

Harry Kataria - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gee Kay Electricals - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Sumir Fatta

07 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                        

                                                Complaint No.  334

                                                Instituted on:    28.03.2016

                                                Decided on:       07.10.2016

 

Harry Kataria son of Ram Chand, resident of Street No.6, Kishan Bagh Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

Gee Kay Electricals, Opposite Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

                                                        …Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Sumir Fatta, Adv.

For OP                     :               Shri Kali Ram Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

               

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Harry Kataria, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one gas water heater of Longer company from the OP vide bill dated 16.11.2015 for Rs.2300/- for his personal use and his family members.  The grievance of the complainant is that when he checked the retail price of the geyser it was Rs.900/- on its wrapper/cover, whereas the OP charged Rs.2300/-, by this way the OP charged an amount of Rs.1400/- in excess from the complainant.  Further case of the complainant is that though he approached the OP for refund of the excess amount of Rs.1400/-, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund him the excess amount of Rs.1400/- along with interest and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature and should be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the geyser for Rs.2300/- on 16.11.2015, but, it is denied that any excess amount was recovered from the complainant. In act the figure ‘900’ denotes the amount in Chinese currency as the geyser in question is of China made and not Indian made. It is further stated that the price of the geyser in China is much more than Rs.2300/- and the geyser was sold by the OP with a profit of Rs.154.93.   It is stated that the complaint has been filed with malafide intention. It is further stated that the OP purchased the geyser in question from the whole seller i.e. Ajanta Electric Company, Malerkotla for Rs.1850/-, besides, VAT @ 14.5% and surcharge on Vat @ 10% i.e. for Rs.2145.07 and sold the same to the complainant for Rs.2300/- by getting the nominal profit.  However, it is stated that the complaint is false and without any basis which should be dismissed with special costs.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-2 copy of bill dated 16.11.2015 and Ex.C-3 copy of wrapper of product and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP  has produced Ex.OP/1 copy of retail invoice, Ex.OP-2 affidavit of Mohinder Singh, Ex.OP-3 copy of quotation dated 26.5.2016, Ex.OP-4 affidavit of Rajeev Kumar, Ex.OP-5 copy of quotation dated 28.5.2016, Ex.OP-6 affidavit of Raj Kumar, Ex.OP-7 affidavit of Gopal Krishan and closed evidence.

 

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

 

5.               In the present case, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging that he purchased one geyser from the OP on 16.11.2015 vide bill Ex.C-2 for Rs.23,00/-, but the OP charged from him an excess amount of Rs.1400/-, as the price of the geyser is only Rs.900/- as mentioned on the wrapper of the geyser.  To support such a contention, he has referred Ex.C-3 copy of the wrapper of the product, where it has been written “Mrp900(inclusive of all taxes)”.   On the other hand, the stand of the OP is that the  OP has sold the geyser at Rs.2300/- rightly be earning  a very nominal margin of Rs.154.93 only from the complainant. Further to support this contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has put reliance on the document Ex.OP-1 i.e. invoice issued by Ajanta Electric Co. from where the OP purchased the Longer Gas Geyser for Rs.1850/- plus VAT @ 14.5% and further surcharge on VAT @ 10%.  The said version is further supported by the affidavit of Shri Mohinder Singh owner of M/s.Ajanta Electric Company, Malerkotla.  Further it is mentioned in the affidavit Ex.Op-2 that the market price of the geyser was not at all Rs.900/- per piece in the year 2015.  The Op has further produced Ex.OP-3 a quotation of Longer geyser for Rs.2375/- issued by M/s. Divyansh Electronics, Sangrur and this quotation is further supported by the affidavit of Rajeev Kumar Kapoor prop of M/s. Divyansh Electronics, Sangrur and the same is the position of quotation given by M/s. Garg Electric Traders, Sangrur whereby he quoted the price of the geyser as Rs.2350/- as is evident from the copy of quotation on record Ex.OP-5.  On the other hand, the complainant has not produced even a single evidence such as quotation on record to show that the actual price of the geyser in question was Rs.900/- only in the year 2015.  Moreover, we may mention that even on the document Ex.C-3 it is not mentioned that the price of the geyser is Rs.900/-, as such, the word ‘Rupees’ does not exist there, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence that the price of the geyser in question was Rs.900/- on 16.11.2015.  Accordingly, we find no unfair trade practice on the part of the OP in selling the geyser in question to the complainant or charged any excess price as contended by the complainant.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                October 7, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member