Mohan Singh filed a consumer case on 24 Apr 2015 against Jain Auto Spares in the Rupnagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/15/6 and the judgment uploaded on 25 May 2015.
BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. : 06 of 06.01.2015
Date of decision : 24.04.2015
Mohan Singh son of Late Baru Ram, resident of Kothi No.63, Gali No.10-A, New Hargobind Nagar, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.
......Complainant
Versus
Jain Auto Spares, Opposite Civil Hospital, Rupnagar, through its
Proprietor.
....Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
MRS. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Sh. Charanjit Singh Ghai, Advocate, counsel for the complainant
Sh. S.K. Wahi, Advocate, counsel for the Opposite Party
ORDER
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Mohan Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P. only) praying for issuance of direction to the O.P. to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony & financial loss suffered by him due to the fault on its part.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is a senior citizen & respectable person and had retired as Class-I Officer from Indian Air Force. On 08.12.2014, he had gone to the shop of the O.P., who is an authorized dealer of Swiss Senior Genuine Spare Parts, Mobile Oil, battery, tyres and accessories, for the purchase of Swiss Item wiring 213-L-Swis, quantity-i. For purchase of the said item, he had paid a sum of Rs.550/- as demanded by the O.P., who also issued bill No.2530 dated 8.12.2014 for the same. Lateron, it was found by him that the MRP written on the packing of the said item was Rs.500/-. He, accordingly, asked the O.P. to take a sum of Rs.500/- from him and not Rs.550/-, but the O.P. became annoyed & started misbehaving with him and did not pay any heed to his request. At that time, some persons were present near the shop of O.P. and the O.P. defamed him in their presence, intentionally and willfully. The said act of the O.P. amounts to deficiency in service, due to which he has suffered mental agony & financial loss. Hence, this complaint.
3. On being put to notice, the O.P. filed written statement, taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has prayed for compensation on account of insult and misbehave by the O.P., therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint and the same is not maintainable in the present Forum; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum of purchase of the item in question by the complainant from the O.P. for a sum of Rs.550/- vide bill dated 8.12.2014 and the MRP of the said item written on the packing of the same as Rs.500/- is admitted. It is stated that the O.P. had purchased the article SAP 213 L i.e. wiring NV SPL from Khattra Auto Store, Morinda Road, Kurali on 27.11.2014 and the MRP of the said article is Rs.650/- per piece, as is mentioned at serial No. 5 of the bill, issued for the same. The said article was sold by it to the complainant on 8.12.2014 for a sum of Rs.550/-. It had never defamed the complainant, as alleged by him. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit, Ex. C1, documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, Sh. Amit Jain, proprietor of the O.P. tendered his affidavit Ex.OP-1, and photocopies of documents Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file carefully.
6. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased Swiss Item wiring 213-L-Swis, from the O.P. vide bill No.2530 dated 8.12.2014 (Ex.C4) for a sum of Rs.550/-, whereas on the package of the said item (Ex.C5), its MRP has been written as Rs.500/-. The stand of the O.P. is that the said article was purchased by it from Khattra Auto Store, Morinda Road, Kurali vide bill dated 27.11.2014 (Ex.OP2), wherein, at serial No. 5, the MRP of the said article has been mentioned as Rs.650/- per piece and he had sold the same for Rs.550/- to the complainant. It is settled law that the shopkeeper/dealer cannot charge price of an article sold by it to a customer more than the MRP written on the said article. If it does so, that is illegal and amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice and the purchaser can file a complaint as per Sec. 2(1)(c)(iv) of the Act. In the instant case, by charging the price more the MRP, the O.P. has indulged in adoption of unfair trade practice and is liable to refund the amount charged in excess than the MRP in addition to payment of compensation for harassment caused to the complainant and also the litigation expenses incurred by him for filing the instant complaint.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint is allowed and the O.P. is directed to refund the excess amount charged by it from the complainant in the sum of Rs.50/- and also to pay him, lump sum amount of Rs.2500/- towards compensation & litigation expenses, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
8. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED (NEENA SANDHU)
Dated: 24.04.2015 PRESIDENT
(SHAVINDER KAUR)
MEMBER.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.