BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 16^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) claiming refund of Rs.420/-, compensation of Rs.50,000/- together with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- from the OP.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The OP is having shop dealing in imported gift toys and other articles.  The complainant on 31.03.2012 visited the shop of OP and purchased a toy train and a book for a total sum of Rs.639/-.  After reaching the home, the complainant found that there are two price stickers on the wrapper of the toy train.  One affixed by the OP mentioning Rs.510/- MRP and another price sticker affixed by the wholesaler mentioning the price as Rs.90/- MRP.  That the OP who has collected Rs.510/- from the complainant for the said toy train has collected excess amount of Rs.420/- than the MRP price of Rs.90/- mentioned on the wrapper.  The complainant immediately went to the OP and requested him to return the excess amount of Rs.420/-, but the OP refused.  Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice and despite service of legal notice, the OP did not bother either to reply to the notice or comply the said notice.  That the OP by charging more than the MRP price of the said toy train has cheated the complainant.  The conduct of the OP in selling the said article more than the MRP price amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service.

For the aforesaid reasons, the complainant prays for an order directing the OP to refund the excess amount of Rs.420/- charged for the said article together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the hardship and mental agony caused and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

3. The OP in response to the notice issued appeared through his advocate and filed his version contending in brief as under:

That it is true that the complainant purchased the said toy train for Rs.510/- from the OP.  That the OP has charged the MRP price to the complainant.  That the complainant has purchased the said toy train from the wholesale dealer by paying the price for Rs.325/- excluding VAT and transportation charges.  That the price of Rs.510/- charged by the OP is inclusive of all the taxes.  That the OP has not at all charged any excess amount from the complainant for the said toy train.  The sticker containing MRP price of Rs.90/- is not pasted by this OP but same has been pasted by the dealer of the goods who has imported the same.  That the OP has not committed any deficiency of service and has not committed unfair trade practice.  Therefore, the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. On the rival contention of both the parties, the points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

5. The complainant to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint filed her affidavit in lieu of evidence.  The OP has also filed the affidavit evidence apart from producing certain documents.  Both parties have submitted their written arguments.

6. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, the averments made in the version of the OP, the sworn testimony of both the parties and the documents relied upon by them and also heard the oral arguments advanced by learned advocates appearing for both the parties.

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

8. (Point No.1) Admittedly the OP is running a toy and stationery shop in the name and style ‘Global Galleria’ at Malleshwaram, Bangalore.  Admittedly the OP sold toy train to the complainant on 31.03.2012 for a sum of Rs.510/-.  The complainant has also produced the receipt under which the said toy train was purchased along with an English alphabet book.  The office copy of the bill maintained by the OP which also indicates the toy train has been sold for Rs.510/-.  The complainant after having gone to the house found two price stickers on the wrapper of the said toy train.  The wrapper of the said toy train is produced.  One price sticker is pasted by the OP, since the sticker contains the name of the shop of the OP.  The MRP shown in the said sticker is Rs.510/-.  There is one more price sticker on the said toy train which the complaint noticed after reaching her home.  On careful examination of the said sticker, it is found that the MRP mentioned in the said sticker is Rs.90/- inclusive of all taxes.  Thus, it is apparent that there are two price stickers on the wrapper of the said toy train.  One showing the MRP price Rs.510/- and another showing the MRP price at Rs.90/-.

9. The complainant alleges that though the MRP price of the said toy train is Rs.90/- the OP by pasting his own sticker has charged Rs.510/- thereby collected excess amount of Rs.420/- from her.  The OP contends that the sticker showing MRP at Rs.90/- is not pasted by him but pasted by wholesale dealer.  He further claims that, he has purchased the said toy train from the wholesale dealer for a sum of Rs.325/-.  To substantiate the same, he has produced the original tax invoice issued by A.G International, No.8/2, Kilari Road, 12^th Cross, Bangalore-560053.  It is mentioned in the said tax invoice that 3 pieces of train have been sold to the ‘Global Galleria’ for a total sum of Rs.975/- @ Rs.325/- per piece.  On the basis of the said tax invoice, the learned advocate for the OP argued that the wholesale price of the said toy train is Rs.325/- and after adding transportation charges, taxes and the profit margin, the MRP of the said toy train has been fixed by the OP at Rs.510/-.  Therefore, he argued that the price sticker showing MRP of Rs.90/- does not depict the correct price of the toy train.

10. Against this, the learned advocate argued that the OP by affixing his own price sticker has cheated the complainant by collecting excess amount of Rs.420/- thereby practiced unfair trade practice.  The OP failed to explain as to why the price of the said toy train has been fixed at Rs.510/- by him though its MRP price has been fixed by the wholesale dealer at Rs.90/-. (Inclusive of all taxes).  It is pertinent to note that the price sticker affixed by the wholesale dealer shows that the said article has been manufactured in the month of October 2010 and the MRP is at Rs.90/- inclusive of all taxes.  When the wholesale dealer himself has fixed the MRP price of said toy train at Rs.90/-, certainly the OP is not at all justified in selling the said toy train for Rs.510/- by affixing his own price sticker.  The OP also did not examine the wholesale dealer to substantiate that the wholesale price of the said toy train is Rs.325/- as mentioned in the tax invoice dated 18.02.2012.  In absence of credible evidence either oral or documentary, it is difficult to believe that the said toy train was sold to OP at the rate of Rs.325/- by the wholesale dealer under the tax invoice dated 18.02.2012.

11. As already stated above, the OP failed explain the circumstances under which the MRP price was increased to Rs.510/-, though its MRP is fixed at Rs.90/- by the wholesale dealer himself.  Thus, it is apparent that the OP has used unfair trade practice in selling the said toy train which also amounts to deficiency in service.  The OP is certainly liable to refund Rs.420/- excessively charged for the said toy train.  Apart from refunding the said excessive amount to the complainant, the OP is also liable to pay adequate compensation to the complainant for the inconvenience, hardship and mental agony caused to her.

12. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the OP shall have to be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,500/- to the complainant together with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.  The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.     

13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:   

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  The OP is directed to refund a sum of Rs.420/- to the complainant together with compensation of Rs.2,500-00 and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

The OP shall comply the order passed by this Forum within six weeks from today.

          Send the copy of the order to both the parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 16^th day of October 2015)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 24.07.2012.

1. Smt. Vidya Patil,

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 24.08.2012.

1. Sri.Swaroop  

Document produced by the Opposite party:

MEMBER                            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln*