Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1093/2015

Niranjan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lava International Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.P.Sharma

22 Jul 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                              

                                                                   Complaint no. 1093                                                                                              

                                                                  Instituted on:  18.09.2015

                                                                   Decided on:    22.07.2016

 

Niranjan Singh son of Karnail Singh resident of village  Chathhe Sekhwan, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                   …. Complainant

                                Versus

1. Lava International Ltd. A-56, Sector-64 Noida, 201301, Uttar Pradesh through its Managing Director/ Authorized signatory.  
2. Makhan Time and  Music Centre, Dhuri Gate Sangrur, authorized dealers of Lava Mobiles through its proprietor.                                                                                          ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT    :       Shri A.G.S.Sidhu,  Advocate                          

 

FOR  OPP. PARTY No.1          :       Shri Sandip Goyal, Advocate

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2                 :         Shri Rattan Verma, Advocate

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Niranjan Singh complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a mobile phone bearing model number Lava Arc 1 Star  vide bill  number 0934 dated 29/05/2015  for an amount of Rs.1150/-  from OP No.2. When the complainant asked the OP No.1 about the overwriting  on the maximum retail price made on the box  the OP No.2 told that the price has increased, so he has made  overwriting on the maximum retail price.  All of sudden the  complainant visited another shop  of mobiles  and inquired  about it  he came to know that actual price of Lava Arc 1 Star was Rs.969/-  instead of Rs.1400/- . When the complainant asked the OP No.2 to return the excess amount the OP No.2 refused to return the same.  The complainant had earlier  filed a complaint  which was dismissed in default but same was due to sudden demise of the father of counsel for the complainant.    

Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

1. OP no.2 be directed to refund the excess amount  illegally charged alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of payment,
2. OP be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.       In reply filed by OP No.1, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, mis-joinder, suppression of material facts, locus standi and cause of action have been taken up. On merits, it is stated that the  OP No.1 has no concern with the dealing which was happened in OP No.2 and complainant has  mentioned in the complaint  that complainant was having  full faith on OP no.1, it means that the complainant has faith on our quality, service and features etc, but  as OP No.2 is no our authorized dealer, hence OP no.1  is not responsible for any act and conduct of OP No.2.

3.         In reply filed by the OP No.2, legal objection on the ground of suppression of material fact has been taken up.  It is stated that there was no overwriting on the box of the mobile set made by the OP No.2 rather  the price was Rs.1199/- .  The overwriting might have been done by the  complainant himself.  Computerized  of Lava ARC I Star is attached and photostat copy of the mobile box has also been attached  showing the price of Rs.1199/- from the complainant.  It is denied that the complainant came  to the shop of OP No.2 immediately and made any complaint to OP no.2.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2.

4.             In his evidence, the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP1/1, Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/3  and closed evidence.

5.             It is not disputed in the case  that the mobile set was purchased from the OP No.2 rather  the OP No.2 has admitted that the mobile set in dispute was purchased by the complainant from it for Rs.1150/- .

6.             Only dispute which arises in this case is with regard to the excess charging of price amount of the mobile set in dispute from the actual price of same.  The complainant's specific case is that after purchase of the mobile set in question  when he came to know that there is overwriting on the maximum retail price made on the box he approached the OP No.2 who told that the price of the mobile set has increased.

7.             From the perusal of the entire record we find that since it is not the case of the complainant that the OP no.2  has charged excessive price amount of Rs.1400/-  of the mobile set in question rather  it is complainant's own case is that  he had purchased the mobile set in question from the OP No.2 for Rs.1150/- then  in the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant regarding overwriting on the  maximum retail price  has  no force. Moreover the complainant has not produced any cogent evidence to prove his version.

8.             Further, even if it is assumed that the  OP No.2 had charged excessive price amount from the complainant then the complainant had to immediately approach the competent authority for lodging of a complaint in this regard but he did not do so and no evidence in this regard has been produced on the record. If the arguments of the complainant are accepted  then we feel that the complainant immediately approached the OP no.2 in this regard but he also failed to do so.

9.             Another aspect of the case is that  the complainant has not moved an application for production of rate list of the mobile set in question from the OP No.1 who is the manufacturer of the same to  prove his case that the price amount of the mobile set in question was Rs.969/- but again the complainant failed to do so. The  complainant has produced a copy of simple document Ex.C-3 mentioning the price of Rs.967/ - which in our opinion is not an authentic document for the purpose of price amount of the mobile set in question.  

10.           For the reasons recorded above, we find  no merit in the complaint of the complainant and the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant however with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   

                Announced

                July 22, 2016

 

 

 

  ( Sarita Garg)    ( K.C.Sharma)          (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                        Member          Member                                President

 

 

 

 

 

BBS/-