BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                               : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             : MEMBER

C.C.No. 230/2015  Filed on 29/05/2015

ORDER DATED: 10/01/2022

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT:

1. This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.  After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:
2. The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant approached the opposite party for taking DTP of an agreement in a stamp paper worth Rs.500/-.  According to the complainant the opposite party demanded Rs.150/- for 3 pages.  As Rs.150/- is exorbitant charge, the complainant questioned that illegality on the ground that at all other DTP centers, the DTP charge per page is only Rs.20/-.  When the complainant disputed with regard to the excess collection of amount, the staff of opposite party contacted the owner and it was learned that the owner instructed the staff not handover the agreement to the complainant unless he pays an amount of Rs.200/-.  Then the complainant asked for the bill and the staff of opposite party issued a bill for Rs.200/- to the complainant and the complainant paid Rs.200/- to the opposite party.  Aggrieved by this, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice raised by the complainant against the opposite party.  According to the opposite party, the complainant approached the opposite party for preparing the Karaar Udampady with Kerala Water Authority where the complainant wished to start the Canteen.  Hence the opposite party agreed for the said work and prepared the draft on the same day.  According to the opposite party the complainant came to his shop on the next day and he has misbehaved with the staff of the opposite party and also contended that the charge collected by the opposite party is not excess.  According to the opposite party the charge collected by the opposite party from the complainant is nominal charge for repairing an agreement.  The opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The evidence in this case consists of PW1, Ext.P1 to P3 on the side of the complainant.  No oral or documentary evidence on the side of the opposite party.            
4. Issues to be considered:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

               on the part of the Opposite Parties?                                                           

2. Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief claimed in the
3.  
4. Order as to cost?

15. Heard. Perused records.  To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P3 were produced and marked.  Ext.P1 is the original Cash bill dated 25/05/2015.  Ext.P2 is the original bill dated 29/03/2016.  Ext.P3 is the Original bill dated 07/04/2016.  The admitted facts in this case are that the complainant approached the opposite party for DTP work for 3 pages and the opposite party collected Rs.200/- from the complainant.  According to the opposite party the amount so collected includes the charges for preparing the agreement also.  Admittedly, Ext.P1 is the bill for Rs.200/- issued the opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.P1 shows the amount of Rs.200/- is collected as charges for DTP-1 page in Rs.500/- stamp paper and 2 white papers.  On verification of Ext.P1, it reveals that it does not disclose that the amount collected is for the purpose of preparing an agreement.  The documents Ext.P2 and P3 are purported to be the bills issued by one Kuttoos Business Center to the complainant on 29/03/2016 and 07/04/2016.  On close verification of Ext.P2 and P3, we find that those bills are not genuine, as the serial No. of Ext.P2 dated 29/03/2016 is 161 and serial no. of Ext.P3 dated 07/04/2016 is 158.  Hence we inclined to accept Ext.P2 and P3.  Now, only question to be considered is whether the disputed amount of Rs.200/- collected by the opposite party from the complainant is for preparing an agreement or for DTP work.  The opposite party’s contention is that it is for preparing an agreement but Ext.P1 shows only regarding DTP work.  The complainant was examined as PW1 and he was cross examined by the opposite party.  By examining himself as PW1 and by producing and marking Ext.P1, the complainant establish that he has approach the opposite party and paid      Rs.200/-.  Hence, the onus to prove the fact that the said collection of amount was for preparing the agreement is on the opposite party.  Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities the opposite party failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence to disprove the case of the complainant.  In view of the above discussion, in the absence of any oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite party, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) as compensation to be the complainant along with Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) towards cost of this proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of remittance/realization.   

 A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 10^th  day of January,  2022.

C.C. No. 230/2015

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                                                                                         PRESIDENT