Haryana

Karnal

CC/238/2020

Surender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jindal Communication - Opp.Party(s)

09 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 238 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.07.07.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:09.02.2023

 

Surender Singh son of Shri Jai Singh, resident of village Shahpur, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Jindal Communications, Shop no.10-C, Old Sabji Mandi, near Sachdeva Sweets Karnal through its prop. Aayush Jindal.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

 Argued by: Shri Vipin Swami, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Jasbir Singh, counsel for the opposite party.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that on 23.06.2020, the mobile of the complainant occurred some problems and stopped to work, due to the corona pandemic the school works of the children of the complainant also stopped. The complainant is in dire need of mobile and on 24.06.2020, complainant went to OP for the repair of the same. The OP seeing the urgency of the complainant suggested him to purchase the mobile Redmi Note 9 Pro Max. On the asking of the OP complainant agreed to purchase the said mobile. The OP filled the amount of Rs.18300/- in the bill and asked the complainant to sign. After seeing the price in the bill, complainant asked the OP that the price of the said mobile is mentioned Rs.16,499/- on the official site of the company itself and shown the online price list to OP. On this, OP told the complainant that it is old price and new price of this mobile will be declared Rs.18,800/- by the company at 12 p.m. today. OP further compelled the complainant now he has been opened and it is useless for him and further compelled the complainant to sign on the bill book and make the payment of Rs.18,300/- to him. The complainant under protest make the payment of Rs.18,300/- and put his sign. During the critical period of corona pandemic threat, the OP inspite of co-operating the people/citizens, intentionally sold the mobile at extra rate than the actual price of the mobile issued by the company and grabbed the extra amount/black money. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that on 24.06.2020, complainant came at the shop of OP for purchase of a new mobile and after seeing, several mobiles, the complainant with his free will without any coercion and pressure purchased a mobile of Redmi Note 9 Pro Max from the OP, for an amount of Rs.18,300/-, vide bill no.22486 dated 24.06.2020. OP has sold the mobile to the complainant as per market value and OP has not charged excess amount from the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of price list of company Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 08.02.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Aayush Jindal proprietor Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 06.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that on 24.06.2020, complainant purchased a mobile set from the OP  for an amount of Rs.18300/-. The price of the said mobile was Rs.16,499/- on the official website of the company and complainant  shown the online price list to OP but OP did not listen the complainant and compelled the complainant now the box has been opened and also compelled to make the payment of Rs.18,300/-. The complainant under protest make the payment of Rs.18,300/-. He further argued that during the critical period of corona pandemic threat, the OP inspite of co-operating the people/citizens, intentionally sold the mobile at extra rate than the actual price of the mobile issued by the company and grabbed the extra amount/black money and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that on 24.06.2020, complainant purchased a mobile of Redmi Note 9 Pro Max from the OP, for an amount of Rs.18,300/-. OP has sold the mobile to the complainant as per market value and OP has not charged any excess amount from the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, complainant purchased a mobile Redmi Note 9 Pro Max from the OP and OP has charged Rs.18300/- and in this regard invoice Ex.C1 has been issued.

11.           Complainant has submitted that rate of the said mobile was of Rs.16499/- but OP has charged Rs.18300/-.

12.           Per contra, OP submitted that he has charged Rs.18300/- and actual rate of the said mobile was Rs.18300/- and in this regard he has also issued bill Ex.C1 and no extra amount has been charged from the complainant.

13.           The onus to prove his version lies upon the complainant. To prove his case complainant has placed on file documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 i.e. online rate list of the mobile. As per document Ex.C2 the rate of the mobile set in question was Rs.16499/-. During the course of arguments, complainant has also placed on file bill dated 24.06.2020 whereby one Rohit Kumar purchased the same mobile for Rs.16500/- from V.S. Communication. Thus, it has been proved on file that OP has charged excess amount from the complainant. Hence the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

14.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund Rs.1800/- (18300-16500) to the complainant. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:09.02.2023

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)           (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                        Member