DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.    249

                                                Instituted on:      01.06.2017

                                                Decided on:       11.08.2017

Lachhman Dass son of Shri Punnu Ram, R/O B-12/258, Shekhu Pura Basti, Outside Sunami Gate, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

Jaidka Communications, Vijay Chowk, Opp. City Police Station, Sangrur through its Prop.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant    :               In person.

For   OP.                   :               Shri G.S.Sibia, Adv.

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Lachhman Dass, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant on 22.5.2017 went to the shop of the OP for purchase of a mobile phone and the sales man of the Op told the complainant the price of the phone as Rs.6900/-. But, the grievance of the complainant is that the OP issued the retail invoice number 602 dated 22.5.2017 for Rs.7200/- for the purchase of J200 Gold Galaxy J2 Samsung mobile phone.  Further case of the complainant is that when the complainant checked the goods purchased by him he found that the Op charged Rs.7200/- instead of Rs.6900/-.  The complainant immediately approached the Op and requested for refund of the excess amount, but all in vain. The complainant has further averred that by this way, he has been harassed in the hands of the Op. As such, alleging  deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant the excess amount of Rs.300/- so charged by the OP and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question vide bill dated 22.5.2017.  It is stated that the Op has rightly charged an amount of Rs.7200/- as told by the OP and the story of the price of the mobile set to be Rs.6900/- has been denied in toto.  It is stated further that when the complainant paid the amount of Rs.7200/- in cash to the OP, then the question of notice the same after reaching at the home does not arise at all. Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of the complainant and  Ex.C-2 copy of bill and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced  Ex.OP1 affidavit and Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-6 are the copies of sale invoices and closed evidence.
 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

5.               Ex.C-2 is the copy of the invoice dated 22.05.2017 issued by the OP to the complainant for sale of the Samsung  mobile set in question for Rs.7200/-. But, in the present case the grievance of the complainant is that though the Op quoted the price of the mobile set to be Rs.6900/-, but the OP charged an amount of Rs.7200/- from the complainant and by this way the Op charged an amount of Rs.300/- in excess from the complainant.  On the other hand, the whole story of the complainant has been denied by the OP being false and without any basis.  We have very carefully perused the whole case file and find that the complainant has miserably failed to establish on record that the OP has charged an amount of Rs.300/- in excess from the complainant.  It is worth mentioning here that if the Op had demanded an amount of Rs.300/- in excess, then why the complainant paid the same and he had the option not to purchase the mobile set in question from the OP.  We further failed to understand the story of the complainant that he came to know at home that the OP has charged  Rs.300/- in excess from the complainant and why he could not understand the same at the shop itself as the complainant had purchased only a single item i.e. mobile set.  Further the OP has drawn our attention towards the copies of other sale invoice dated 22.5.2017 showing the sale price of the mobile set J200 Gold Galaxy J2 Samsung for Rs.7200/- only. On the other hand, the complainant has produced nothing on record to show that the price of the mobile set in question on 22.5.2017 was Rs.6900/-.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record.

6.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in complaint or any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, as such, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However,  the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 11, 2017.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                        Member