This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that 31-08-2012 he purchased 20 pieces of electrical articles from the OP on payment of cash amount but after returning home he found the OP took excess amount than that of the MRP amount of the articles and in respect of six items OP received excess amount than that of the MRP price as provided in the box of the articles.  So, complainant reported the matter to the OP after coming from Bankura but the OP threatening for which he lodged an application before the CA&FBP office at Bankura but Bankura office sent it to Kolkata office that office sent notice to the OP.  Complainant appeared on 08-01-2013 but OP did not appeared and next date was fixed on 13-02-2013 and on that date both the parties appeared and OP was willing to refund the excess amount of Rs.600/- but complainant did not accept it because in the meantime complainant has been harassed and he lodged huge money and in the above situation complainant for adopting unfair trade practice compelled to file this case praying for compensation etc.

          On the other hand OP by filing written statement submitted since purchase of the electrical products from the OP the complainant never visited his office or shop with such allegations and grievances and such an allegation of threatening made by the OP to the complainant does not arise.  Further it was submitted that the calculation is made on the complaint is incorrect and fact remains complainant did not avail the purchase bill issued on behalf of the OP relating to the transaction by and between the parties with sole intention to mislead the forum and OP already filed the copy of the purchase bill and from the said bill it would be found that OP never received any excess amount then that of the MRP amount and further it is submitted that in one occasion complainant went to the shop of the OP and requested to OP to take back certain articles out of sold articles but OP refused to accept the same when complainant threatened the OP that OP shall have to face the conclusions and practically the entire complaint is fabricated and false one.  So, the complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with Reasons

After hearing the Ld. Lawyer of the OP and also the complainant personally and further considering the admitted fact that complainant purchased the article from the OP but OP’s Ld. Lawyer at the time of advancement of the argument tried to convince that in all cases OP issued the receipt after selling the articles to the complainant5 and complainant received b ut same are not submitted and it was submitted that receipt no.5604 dated 31-08-2012 will speak that OP did not receive any amount excess than that of the MRP amount but complainant intentionally had been submitted that tax invoice and so as per said tax invoice it would clear that complainant was in this regard we have gone through the alleged tax invoice as submitted by the OP dated 31-08-2012 wherefrom t is found that it is not noted in the tax invoice whether it was in cash or credit.  It is also not noted whether the amount was paid or not by the purchaser and mist interesting factor in tax invoice there is no registration number of the shop as per Shop and Establishment Act.  So, question is how such tax invoice can be billed when in the tax invoice there is no signature of the customer that he received those articles.  And considering that Exhibit D-1 filed on the part of the OP appears to be procured one subsequently.

          Further we have gathered that total value of the two way switch is noted Rs.480/-.  But if we compare that Exhibit D-1 in that case we also find that after deducting 10% and adding 4% Vat the total value of two way switch would be Rs.449-28 paise but complainant received it Rs.480/-.  Similarly, in respect of 5 pieces 5 in Rs.909/- was received but after deducting 10% and adding 4% Vat the value would be Rs.850-82paise but fact remains OP received Rs.7,751/- which is evident from the road challan.  At the same time in the tax invoice rate of per piece is not noted.  It indicates that tax invoice was procured by the OP and at the same time OP has failed to produce that in respect of the said challan he deposited Vat tax of Rs.755/- in the said month against such bill no such document is produced that he paid Vat tax in the year 2012 so, considering all the above fact and also non-submission of the registration of the shop as per Shop and Establishment Act in this regard in the said bill we are confirmed that it is a procured one.

          On the other hand, considering the admission of the OP regarding sale of the article to the complainant and also considering the documents it is found that

1)                  In respect of 5 pin socket 15 in per MRP was 32 per piece but complainant received Rs.56 but as per MRP the total would be 385/-.

2)                  In respect of 2A such 15 in number MRP per piece is Rs.20/- and total would be Rs.200/- but OP received Rs.480/- and in respect of 16 ampire switch two in number MRP per piece was 17 but OP ought to have received Rs.140/- but actually received Rs.156/-  and in case of 5 in 1 for 5 pieces MRP per piece was Rs.165/-, so OP ought to have received Rs.825/- but received Rs.925/- and in respect of 32 ampire one isolator 3 in number MRP was Rs.360/- per piece and OP ought to have received Rs.1080/- but actually received Rs.1275/-.

Fact remains it is evident from the packet it has been submitted by the complainant that to consider what is actual MRP printed in the packet.  Truth is that on 31-08-2012 complainant issued road challen in his shop’s pad and received money Rs.7,751/- against supply of the said items stating the total value of each item when no tax invoice was handed over to the complainant and present tax invoice, Exhibit D-1 is prepared and procured one and only to save OP from misconduct and this paper is filed and truth is that there is no signature of the customer and about payment there is no such endorsement in the said procured tax invoice which was not filed before CA&FBP.  Further no document is produced that he has been holding a licence of shop under Shop and Establishment Act so, it is clear that the tax invoice is fabricated one and it is filed to save its skin and is conducting an unfair trade practice and no doubt he received excess amount than that of the MRP price in respect these items and by that way he received a sum of Rs.600/- as excess. 

Truth is that complainant lodged complaint before CA&FBP and OP agreed to refund the same and complainant in the meantime he has been harassed and he has spent huge money for which complainant did not accept the same but the fact remains OP runs a business without any receipt and he took price of the articles more than that of the MRP and in this case this allegation is proved.  So, considering the fact we are convinced that OP has been adopted an unfair trade practice and no doubt by adopting unfair trade practice he received more than Rs.600/- as excess amount from the complainant after selling the electrical goods and that amount is excess in view of the tax invoice it was excess to the MRR amount noted in the box and this box which are in the record and from which we are confirmed that OP receiving from the complainant in such a manner and no doubt he has harassed the complainant in so many manner though he is a school teacher hailing from Bankura and for such we are convinced to hold that complainant has been able to prove that OP has been acted illegally by running a business by deceiving customers by unfair trade practice and complainant was harassed by the OP no doubt and it is also proved OP by adopting unfair trade practice took excess amount of Rs.600/- more than that of the total price as per MRP of the articles so present complaint is proved beyond any manner of doubt.                                                                            

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP with a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) for adopting unfair trade practice and also for taking amount of Rs.600/- as excess than that of the total MRP amount of these items OP is imposed punitive damages of Rs.,10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and for checking OP’s trade practice this punitive damage is imposed and it must be deposited before this Forum within one month from the date of this order.

          For harassment and causing mental pain and damages OP shall has to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant. 

          OP is directed to comply the order within one month from the date of this order failing which penal interest @200 shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree and even after it is found that OP is unwilling to comply this order in that penal action u/s.27 of the C.P. Act shall be started for implementation of this order.