Punjab

Tarn Taran

CC/62/2014

Kulwant Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lal Hatti - Opp.Party(s)

H.S. Sandhu

11 Feb 2015

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran.

 

CC No.                 :62 of  2014

Date of Institution  :08.09.2014

Date of Decision.   :11.02.2015

 

Kulwant Kaur wife of Satnam Singh resident of Ward No. 11 , Guru Nanak Colony, near Bawana Mandir, Patti, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran

                                                                   …….   Complainant

                                      Versus

Lal Hatti, Railway Road Patti, District Tarn Taran through its Proprietor.

……. Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 12, 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

For the complainant         :         Sh. Harpreet Singh Sandhu Advocate

For the Opposite party    :         Sh. M.P. Arora Advocate

 

Quorum:     Sh. S.K. Goel, President

                   Sh. R.D. Sharma, Member

Order dictated by Sh. R.D. Sharma Member

1        Smt. Kulwant Kaur complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short ‘the Act’) against Lal Hatti Railway Road Patti, District Tarn Taran through its Proprietor (herein-after referred to as ‘Opposite party’)

2        The complainant has alleged that she has purchased some cosmetics from the opposite party on 14.8.2014 for Rs. 8,188/- vide a Bill issued in the hand writing of the opposite party and the complainant was accompanied by her daughter. The complainant purchased four nail polish of Insight Brand for Rs. 75/- each from the opposite party total price of the four being Rs. 300/- mentioned in the bill. It is further alleged that the complainant was very much astonished when on reaching home, she noticed that the MRP written on the four nail polished was hidden under the ink of marker and to know about the actual MRP, she rubbed the ink and came to know that MRP written on the packing of the nail polish was Rs. 45/- per piece. The complainant was very much embarrassed to know the act of the opposite party so as to charge more than the MRP which is unfair trade practice. It is further alleged that the complainant went to the opposite party to complain him about his act and practice and to get the access amount charged by him from the complainant over and above the actual MRP and also for getting compensation from him for his act, but the opposite party did not hear to the genuine request of the complainant, rather misbehaved with the complainant. Hence the present complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking the following reliefs:-

(a)      The opposite party be directed to pay Rs. 120/- i.e. over and above the MRP of the four piece of nail polishes.

(b)     The opposite party be directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- for the compensation for unfair trade practice and causing harassment to the complainant as this is the common practice used by the opposite party for charging over and above the MRP from all his customers.

(c)     The opposite party be directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 

3        Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written version taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability, jurisdiction, mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties and suppressing the material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant has purchased some cosmetics from opposite party. The complainant and her husband used to purchase the articles/ goods of domestic needs from the opposite party on credit. The opposite party has denied that the complainant has purchased four piece of nail polishes of INSIGHT BRAND for Rs. 75/- each from the opposite party. The complainant has put forward a false and concocted story in order to get unjust benefit. It is further pleaded that the opposite party is a small shop keeper at Patti and has not sold anything to anybody or to complainant above than the genuine price or the price mentioned on the particular product/ thing. It is also pleaded that the opposite party has never sold the alleged nail polishes to the complainant on the price more than mentioned on the same and on the other hand, the opposite party has always sold all the things to the complainant and her husband on the genuine price and moreover some articles/ things after making some concessions from the maximum retail price. But the complainant in order to cheat  this  Forum as well as to avoid her and her husband’s above mentioned liability towards the opposite party, has manipulated the facts regarding the price of the nail polishes and has dragged the opposite party in an unwarranted and unnecessary litigation. The complainant and her husband had purchased some domestic articles/ goods from the opposite party on credit in the months of February to May 2013. The details of the bills are as, Bill dated 25.2.2013 of Rs. 1,690/-, Bill dated 26.2.2013 of Rs.  1,379/-, Bill dated 28.2.2013 of Rs. 1,098/-, Bill dated 11.3.2013 of Rs. 1,120/-, Bill dated 2.4.2013 of Rs. 1,279/-, Bill dated 15.5.2013 of Rs. 1,300/- and another balance of Rs. 500/- and the clear outstanding balance towards the complainant and her husband in favour of the opposite party comes to Rs. 8,366/-. Inspite of repeated demands from the complainant and her husband by the opposite party, they did not bother to clear the above said outstanding balance amount. But the complainant, in order to cheat this Forum as well as to avoid above said liability towards the opposite party has manipulated the facts regarding the price of the nail polishes and has dragged the opposite party in unwarranted and unnecessary litigation. The opposite party has denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for dismissal of the complainant.

4        In order to prove this case, the complainant has proved on record her affidavit Ex. C.1 alongwith documents Ex. C.2, C.3, product in question Ex. C.4 and closed the evidence.

5        To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party has tendered in to evidence affidavit of Sanjeev Jain proprietor of Opposite party Ex. OP1/1, affidavit of Suman Bhalla son of Aroor Chand Bhalla proprietor of Mashoor Hatti (General Marchant) Railway Road Patti, District Tarn Taran.

6        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7        The case of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased some cosmetics from the opposite party on 14.8.2014 for Rs. 8,188/- vide Bill Ex. C.2 and the opposite party has received Rs. 300/- i.e. price of four Nail polishes at the rate of Rs. 75/-. It is also contended that the complainant noticed that the MRP written on the four nail polishes was hidden under the ink of marker and to know about the actual MRP, she rubbed the ink and came to know that MRP written on the packing of nail polish was Rs. 45/- per piece. The complainant has placed on record nail polish in question Ex C.4 showing the price of Rs. 45/-. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite party has received Rs. 75/- per piece instead of Rs. 45/- per piece. In this way, the opposite party has charged more than the MRP which constitutes unfair trade practice. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party admitted that the complainant has purchased some cosmetics from opposite party. It is also contended that the complainant and her husband used to purchase the articles/ goods of domestic needs from the opposite party on credit. The opposite party has denied that the complainant has purchased four nail polishes of INSIGHT BRAND for Rs. 75/- each from the opposite party. It is also contended by the opposite party that the opposite party has never sold the alleged nail polish to the complainant on the price more than mentioned on the same. The opposite party has always sold all the things to the complainant and her husband on the genuine price and moreover some articles/ things after making some concessions from the maximum retail price. But the complainant in order to cheat this  Forum as well as to avoid her and her husband’s above mentioned liability towards the opposite party, has manipulated the facts regarding the price of the nail polish and has dragged the opposite party in an unwarranted and unnecessary litigation. The complainant and her husband had purchased some domestic articles/ goods from the opposite party on credit on various occasions and the outstanding balance towards the complainant and her husband in favour of the opposite party comes to Rs. 8,366/- . Inspite of repeated demands from the complainant and her husband by the opposite party, they did not bother to clear the above said outstanding balance amount. To support their case, the opposite party has tendered in to evidence affidavit of Sanjeev Jain Ex. OP1 wherein they reiterated the facts as mentioned in the written version, the opposite party has also tendered in evidence affidavit of one Suman Bhalla son of Aroor Chand Ex. OP2, wherein it has been specifically written that he is having shop opposite Lal Hatti (opposite party) and is doing the business of General Merchant. He further pleaded in his affidavit that complainant and her husband used to purchase goods from his shop on credit basis. But the complainant and her husband had not cleared the outstanding balance amount due towards him. He further pleaded in his affidavit that the complainant and her husband are also having some amount due towards the opposite party, but they had not cleared the outstanding balance amount due towards the opposite party and have filed the present complaint in order to avoid their liability towards the opposite party. To support their version the opposite party has also tendered in evidence ledger of the opposite party pertaining to the complainant Ex. OP3 showing the balance of Rs. 8,366/-. The opposite party further contended that the husband of the complainant is involved in criminal cases of cheating and fraud etc. to support their version the opposite party has also tendered in evidence news cuttings Ex. OP4 to OP7. The opposite party has also tendered in to evidence packing of nail polish Ex. OP8 and closed the evidence.

8        We have carefully gone through the contentions advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties. The case of the opposite party is that they have not sold the nail polish in question Ex. C.4 to the complainant and they have not received the excess amount than maximum retail price. However the opposite party has tendered in to evidence one another nail polish Ex. OP8 showing the retail price Rs. 80/-. It is not been proved on record by the complainant that the nail polish in question Ex. C.4 has been purchased by the complainant from the opposite party. Moreover bill Ex. C.2 only shows that opposite party sold 4 pieces of nail polishes, but no brand of the nail polish has been mentioned on the bill from which it can be proved that the nail polish Ex. C.4 and mentioned on the bill Ex. C.2 are same. The complainant has failed to prove that she has purchased the nail polish in question Ex. C.4 from the opposite party. The opposite party has also proved on record that amount is due against the complainant and her husband and to avoid his liability, he has filed the present complaint just to escape from his liability. To support its case, the opposite party has tendered in evidence affidavit of one Suman Bhalla who also pleaded in his affidavit that complainant and her husband purchased some goods from him on credit basis, but they have not cleared his account so far and his amount is also due against complainant and her husband. But the complainant has failed to rebut the evidence of the opposite party, it shows that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party and this complaint without any merits. However the alleged news cuttings Ex. OP4 to OP7 have no relevancy to the present case.
The aforesaid documents and circumstances show that from escaping from the liability of credit amount, the complainant has filed the present complaint. However, the opposite party is at liberty to  recover the said amount from the complainant, if any, through competent court of law, by filing recovery suit. 

9        In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum                                                       

11.02.2015                                                            President                                 

 

                                                                             Member