BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 19^th DAY OF JULY, 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1370/2019

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Prasad N,

S/o C.Narayana Gowda,

Aged about 33 years,

R/at No.23, 10^th Cross,

Pipeline Road, Vijaynagar,

V/s

Godrej and Boyce manufacturing Company Limited,

Vikhroli,

Mumbai-400 079...…OPPOSITE PARTY-1

(Opposite party Rep by Sri.K.B.Harish., Adv)

EPT Service Point,

No.71/11, 18^th Cross,

Rajajinagar 1^st Block,

Bengaluru-560 010. ..…OPPOSITE PARTY-2

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

The complainant party in person has filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to return the excess amount charged and to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation towards loss, pain and agony suffered due to the opposite parties and such other reliefs. 

2.  The opposite party no.2 is the service agent and opposite party no.1 is the company.  It is not in dispute that on the request of the complainant for repair and service of the Godrej Refrigerator, the Customer Care Executive of opposite party no.1 company had sent their technician and the technician one Mr.Govan charged a sum of Rs.2,000/-.

3.  It is the case of the complainant that the technician had charged more price than the MRP rate fixed on the boxes of spare part fixed to the refrigerator and despite of the request by the complainant for return of the excess amount taken and email send to the Godrej Customer Care, the opposite parties did not repay the same.  Hence, the complaint.   

4. It is the further contention of the opposite party no.1 that the bill for Rs.2,000/- said to have been charged by the technician produced by the complainant is a manipulated one and the opposite party had attended the complaint filed by the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant and the petition was filed due to extract money from the opposite parties.  Hence, it is sought to dismiss the complaint.

5.  Even though notice been served on opposite party no.2, opposite party no.2 remained absent.  Hence, the opposite party no.2 is placed ex-parte.

6. To prove the case, PW1 has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 documents.  The Power of attorney holder of opposite party no.1 (RW1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.R1 document. 

7. None of the parties have filed written arguments.

8.  Heard the complainant and the counsel for the opposite parties.

         9. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties ?

    ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the  

         compensation as sought ?

     iii) What order ?

      10.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :  In affirmative

Point No.2 :  Partly in affirmative

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

11. POINT NO.1:- PW1 & RW1 have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief.  In support of the oral evidence, PW1 has produced EX.P1 receipt said to have been issued by the Customer Executive of opposite party no.1.  On perusal of EX.P1, it appears that in total the technician has raised bill for a sum of Rs.2,000/-.  According to PW1, on the component No.1, instead of the MRP price mentioned on package of Rs.550/- it was charged a sum of Rs.650/- and for component no.2 instead of MRP mentioned on package of Rs.600/- it was charged a sum of Rs.850/-.  According to the opposite party, the opposite party no.1 company is a reputed company having global recognition in manufacturing and marketing of home appliances from several decades.  Further it is admitted by RW1 that the complainant had raised a complaint on 31.07.2019 regarding the repair and service of the refrigerator and a technician was sent to the residence of the complainant on 01.08.2019.  Further the complainant had disputed the bill, saying that the product was sold for a price more than market value and the same is against law and is not permitted.  Since the opposite party had disputed the bill, it would have produced document to substantiate that the technician had charged the bill only on maximum retail price.   The burden is heavily casted on the opposite parties to substantiate that the technician has charged only the maximum retail price on the components.  The complainant has specifically mentioned the MRP of both the components and the bill vide EX.P1 indicates the sale price of the components.  Further on 01.08.2019 on the date of service made itself the complainant had sent an email to opposite party no.1 with regard to the charge made more than MRP.  Further on 02.08.2019 one more email has been sent by the complainant stating that a lady from opposite party called him and told that company would send Rs.300/- as refund with executive but no one turned out. 

12. EX.R1 is the copy of the power of attorney said to have been executed in favour of RW1 to conduct the case on behalf of opposite party no.1.  Since the opposite parties did not produce any cogent evidence that only MRP mentioned on two components was mentioned in EX.P1 bill, we feel the Customer Executive of opposite party no.1 had charged a sum of Rs.350/- more than the maximum retail price on two components fixed on the refrigerator belongs to the complainant.  Hence, we feel the act of the opposite party is a “restrictive trade practice” as contemplated U/s 2(1)(nnn) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in affirmative. 

13.   POINT No.2:- The complainant claimed an excess amount charged and compensation of Rs.35,000/-.  During the pendency of the proceedings on 05.07.2022 the counsel for the opposite party submitted that the opposite party no.1 was ready to pay Rs.15,000/- in full and final settlement and the complainant sought more compensation.  Hence, the case was taken-up for orders.  The complainant had paid an excess amount of Rs.350/- on 01.08.2019 and despite an email been sent to the opposite party did not return the excess amount charged.  Hence, definitely, the complainant had undergone mental agony and the act of the opposite party made the complainant to file this complaint.  The complainant had filed a complaint as party in person.  On taking all these fact into consideration, we feel in total the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- and it would meet the ends of justice.  No doubt, the complainant had submitted that number of times he attended the court and remained absent to his office.  We have considered all those facts while deciding the above compensation.  Accordingly, we answer this point partly in affirmative. 

14.  POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following;

The complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation, litigation cost including the excessive amount charged. 

The opposite party No.1 shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of order till realization. 

In case, the opposite party No.1 fails to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount of Rs.15,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 19^th day of July, 2022)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainants side:

Sri.Prasad N, the complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Copy of the bill given by Technician.

2. Copy of the email complaint and conversation.

3. Copy of the two wrappers Empty Box of the new components replaced along with MRP.

Witness examined for the opposite party side: 

Sri.Kuldeepak Singh, Branch Commercial Head of opposite party No.1 has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:

1. Xerox copy of power of attorney.

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•