Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 22/07/2009 passed in consumer complaint No.21/2009, Mr.Jagdish Vishnu Dhond V/s. M/s.Durgashankar Enterprises, by District Consumer Forum, Sindhudurg. Consumer complaint is filed with two fold allegations. One is about following an unfair trade practice for selling the goods at a price more than what is mentioned as ’MRP’. According to him, Philips Home Theatre was available and sold with MRP at `3,490/- but, it was sold to him for `4,500/- i.e. above the maximum retail price (MRP). However, when the grievance was made, the shopkeeper/appellant had given him discount receipt since, earlier, the Home Theatre was purchased on credit. Other complaint is about remote of the said Home Theatre, which according to the complainant was not functioning properly. Said remote was under the warranty of Philips Company of which the Home Theatre was purchased. The Company, which has given warranty, is not party before the Forum below. Nothing has been established to show that remote was required any repairs and it would fall within the warranty conditions. Said remote was given for repairs to the O.P. and it was returned under certain conditions. Therefore, consumer complaint was filed. Forum below accepted the contention of the complainant and directed the O.P. to replace remote and further, also granted `5,000/- towards mental torture and `1,000/- as costs. Forum below also gave direction related to the alleged unfair trade practice and awarded punitive damages of `10,000/-. Further direction was given not to follow such practice. Feeling aggrieved thereby, O.P. preferred this appeal. The product is a Home Theatre and when it was brought to the notice of seller that the price charged is more than MRP Label, the seller immediately redressed said grievance by giving discount receipt, supra, and which was accepted by the complainant. Therefore, when the consumer complaint was filed said cause of action did not survive. Coming to the compensation awarded of `5,000/- for mental torture, we find considering the price of product `3,490/- such compensation is unjust and improper. Furthermore, the product-Home Theatre was functioning and only remote was not functioning. Therefore, we find just and proper to reduce the compensation from `5,000/- to `1,000/-. Cost of `1,000/- awarded, in the given circumstances is not disturbed. Direction given to replace the remote in the background of the circumstances that the said remote was given to the seller and return it after repairs, we find it not necessary to disturb said direction. As far as relief regarding direction not to follow such unfair trade practice i.e. selling goods more than MRP, we find it proper and not to disturb the same. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Appeal is partly allowed. 2. Direction of punitive direction of `10,000/- given in Para 4 of the operative part of the impugned order is set aside. 3. In Para 3 of the operative part of the impugned order, figure of “`5,000/-” be substituted with “`1,000/-”. Rest of the impugned order stands confirmed. 4. No order as to costs. 5. As submitted at this stage by both the parties, respondent/org. complainant be paid as directed in the impugned order and as modified in the appeal, from the amount deposited by the appellant before the District Consumer Forum as per the condition of stay and balance be refunded to the appellant. 6. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. |
