BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.
Complaint No. 819 of 2019
Date of Instt.: 11.11.2019
Date of Decision: 18.2.2021
Satyapal Sharma son of Shri Gainda Ram Sharma, H. No. G-9, near Subzi Mandi, Old Bharat Nagar, Bhiwani-127021 (Haryana).
……..Complainant.
Versus
The Manager/Partner, M/s Hari Electronics Co. Near Adrash Mahila College, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani-127021.
Complaint under the Consumer Protection
Act.
Before: Mr. Nagender Singh, President.
Mr. Shriniwas Khundia, Member.
Present: Sh. M.C. Sharma, Adv. for complainant.
Sh. Bal Krishan, representative OP.
NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT
ORDER:-
Brief facts of the present complaint, according to the complainant, are that the complainant had purchased a washing machine make L.G., Model No. P.9037, 8Kg from the OP on 19.9.2019 and paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/-to the OP against tax invoice dated 19.9.2019. It is averred that after the purchase of said washing machine, the complainant doubted his dealing in washing machine and inquired into the price of aforesaid machine in the market and it came to know that the washing machine of aforesaid make and the same specifications is available in the market for Rs. 13,000/-including GST. The complainant was surprised and shocked to know that a sum of Rs. 2000/-has been charged in excess in comparison with market rate and felt himself cheated. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OP on 14.10.2019 but the OP did not give any reply thereof within specified period. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP in charging excessive price of washing machine, the complainant seeks directions against the OP to refund a sum of Rs. 2000/-excessively charged from him along with interest, compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief which this Forum (now Commission) deems it fit and proper.
2. Upon notice, the OP appeared and by way of its written statement took some preliminary objections viz. the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing and maintainability of the present complaint etc. It is averred that the complainant had purchased the washing machine make LG on finance basis (Bajaj Finance) on 19.9.2019 for Rs.15,000/-and paid only Rs. 5000/-and got financed the remaining amount and the answering respondent had received an amount of Rs. 9358/-from Bajaj Finance after deduction of Rs. 642/-(Rs. 199/-Add on card fee + Rs. 443/-DSD charges) by Bajaj Finserv lending and in this way, the answering respondent had only received Rs. 14,358/-whereas the MRP of washing machine was Rs. 16,300/-and the Dealer price of the same was Rs. 15,290/-. It is averred that the answering respondent has sold the washing machine in question to the complainant on a very genuine rate by giving a very handsome discount to him and there is no question of charging excess amount of Rs. 2000/-from the complainant by the answering respondent. It is averred that the complainant had purchased the washing machine after satisfying himself from every angle i.e. the rate of washing machine and quality of the same and at his own sweet will. The complainant has leveled vague allegation in the legal notice by misleading his Advocate. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent, so there is no question of refunding any amount to the complainant. It is averred that the complainant is not entitled for any relief and accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the respondent.
3. The counsel of complainant after tendering in evidence documents closed the evidence on 14.2.2020. The complainant also filed written arguments on dated 17.3.2020.
On the other hand, the OP tendered into evidence Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on 27.2.2020. The respondent also filed a distribution agreement on dated 10.9.2020 and the same is marked as JN-A.
4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel of the parties and gone through the entire evidence so placed on record by the parties very carefully and minutely.
During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for complainant reiterated the contents complaint of complainant and the representative appearing on behalf of OP reiterated the contents of reply filed by the OP and drawn the attention of this Forum/Commission towards the documents so placed on record by both the parties.
5. We have perused the documents placed on file very carefully and minutely. After hearing the arguments and going through the entire case file and perusing the documents so placed on record very carefully and minutely, we have observed that in order to prove the version mentioned in the written statement that the respondent had received an amount of Rs. 5000/-as cash from complainant and Rs. 9358/- on dated 19.9.2019 from Bajaj Finance after deducting Rs. 642/- (Rs. 199/-add on Card Fee + Rs. 443/-DSD charges). The learned for respondent placed on record document Disbursal Advice as Ex. R-1 of Bajaj Finserv Lending. The minute perusal of said document (Ex. R-1) shows that an amount of Rs. 15,000/-has been received by the respondent from the complainant. Moreover, the respondent has admitted this fact in its written statement that the complainant had purchased a washing machine make LG on finance basis on 19.9.2019 for Rs. 15,000/-. However, in its written statement, the respondent further mentioned that the MRP of washing machine in question was Rs. 16,300/-and the Dealier Price of the same was Rs. 15,290/- but he (respondent) has only received an amount of Rs. 14,358/-after deduction of Rs. 642/- (Rs. 199/-Add on Card Fee + Rs. 443/-DSD charges) by Bajaj Finserve Lending against the article delivered to the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant has leveled the allegations upon the respondent that he has been cheated by the respondent and in fact, the cost of same article i.e. Washing Machine Make LG, Model No. P. 9037, 8 Kg. in the market including GST was Rs. 13,000/-only on 12.10.2019 and the respondent has charged Rs. 15,000/-from complainant on 19.9.2019 thus the respondent has charged an excess amount of Rs. 2000/-from the complainant. We have minutely perused the document Ex. R-1 placed on record by the respondent carefully and observed that the said document has not been countersigned and without any seal of L.G. Electronics Pvt. Ltd., therefore, has no authenticity. Moreover, as per the version of respondent, he has sold out the article (LG Washing Machine) to the complainant less than the Dealer price of Rs. 15,290/-i.e. on less amount of Rs. 15,000/-. We have perused the Tax Invoice/bill (annexure C-1) placed on record by the complainant and found that the complainant had indeed purchased the said LG Washine Machine, Model P 9037 from the respondent on 19.9.2019 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/-whereas in its written statement, the respondent is alleging the Dealer Price of the said Machine to be Rs. 15,290/-which creates doubt in our mind that how can a seller can sell a Washing Machine less than the Dealer Price of Rs. 15,290/- as sold out in the present case in hand for only Rs. 15,000/-. We have further observed that the complainant has also placed on record quotation dated 12.10.2019 (annexure C-2) got from Bhagwati Computers who has mentioned the price of said LG Washing Machine 8 Kg Model 9037 worth Rs. 13,000/-only. Hence, we are of the considered view that when the said LG washing machine of same model and brand was available in the market for Rs. 13,000/-on 12.10.2019, by selling the same model and brand of washing machine to the complainant for Rs. 15,000/-, the respondent has committed deficiency in service towards the complainant.
7. For the reasons and findings recorded above, we hereby allow the present complaint of complainant against opposite party directing it to refund a sum of Rs.2000/-(as excessively charged) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization of final payment. The respondent is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/-as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment etc. and Rs. 3000/-as litigation expenses to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made within a period of 45 days. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission
Dated: - 18.2.2021
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.
