Orissa

Baudh

CC/83/2013

Yudhistira Rana(27),S/O/Tapi Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kartika Sahu,Propritoir IMFL Off Shop,Ghantapada - Opp.Party(s)

LD Adv

27 Mar 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/83/2013
 
1. Yudhistira Rana(27),S/O/Tapi Rana
At/Malpada,Po,Srimal,P.S,Kantamal,Dist-Boudh
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Kartika Sahu,Propritoir IMFL Off Shop,Ghantapada
At/Po-Ghantapada,P.S/Kantamal,Dist-Boudh
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Padmanava Mahakul PRESIDENT
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

                                                                                   

         1.    The case of the complainant  in brief is that  he had purchased  a McDowell No.1   from O.P No.1 on 14.11.2013 at  about 5 P.M.The O.P No.2 had taken Rs.450/ the price value of said McDowell foreign liquor. The complainant stated that the actual price of the said McDowell was Rs.390/- inclusive all taxes. When he approached to the O.P No.2 for taking excess amount then the O.P No.2 could not give satisfactory reply and as per the direction of the O.P No.1 he had taken the said price. The complainant reported the matter before the ASI Ghantapada Police Station and also obtained video clip for the conversation of the O.P No.2 .The complainant approached O.P. to provide receipt, but  the O.P could not supply the same. When the complainant could not get any relief   he has filed this case before this forum for compensation and cost of litigation.

 

           2. After being noticed, the O.Ps appeared and filed counter in this above case. The case of the O.PNo.1 is that the case is not maintainable and made completely denied the allegation made by the complainant. The complainant had never visited the shop nor purchased the McDowell by paying cost of Rs.450/-.       The O.P No.1 never took excess price from the complainant. The O.P.No.1 has never made any unfair trade practice at any point   of time and prayed for dismissal of the case. The case of the O.P No.3 is that the case is not maintainable and there is no allegation made by the complainant against the O.Ps .The O.P had not made unfair practice and prayed for dismissal of the case.

             3.The complainant filed  an affidavit and was cross examined before the Forum and produced the video clip to prove that the O.PNo.2 had taken excess price from the complainant. The complainant filed Xerox copy of station diary  entry on the very day and reported matter to the ASI,Ghantapada, Police Station  and station diary has been made  by the concerned  ASI .The complainant reported the matter to Supdt. of Excise regarding illegal selling of the McDowell by taking excess price. The O.P neither filed any documents nor evidence regarding the allegation made by him.

          4.The point for determination in this case is whether the complainant is a consumer against the O.Ps and whether the O.Ps caused any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the complainant..

          5.The complainant had purchased a McDowell on the very day on payment of Rs.440/- and also made complain before ASI for illegal selling of foreign liquor and had taken excess price from him. The complainant also reported the matter Supt. Excise for taking excess price on the McDowell liquor .The O.P. 3 after receiving the complaint made enquiry about the allegation made by the complainant. The complainant produced the video clip where it is visible he purchased the said foreign liquor from the O.P No.2.As such the complainant became a consumer against the O.Ps.The complainant made allegation against the O.P No.2 that the O.P had taken Rs.450/-instead of actual price Rs 390/- and the O.Ps had not made any counter claim that he had not taken the same. There is no evidence on documents or oral that the O.Ps had taken excess price from the complainant. The O.PNo.3 though enquired the matter could not give report on the allegation. From the evidence of the video clip submitted by the complainant we came to a conclusion that the O.P.no.2 had taken excess price from the complainant.

        Taking into consideration case of the complainant, documents filed by him and submission made by the O.Ps  we allow the case  of the complainant in part and direct the O.P No  and 1  to 2  to return back the  excess amount Rs.50/-(Rupees fifty) only  taken from the complainant and  pay Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand) only as compensation towards cost litigation to the complainant  within one month from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take steps against the O.Ps for realization of awarded amount. The case against O.P.No.3 is dismissed without cost.

           Order pronounced in the open court under the seal and signature of the Forum this the 27th day of March, 2015.

 

                    

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Padmanava Mahakul]
PRESIDENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.