KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.35/2023

JUDGEMENT DATED: 10.04.2023

(Against the Order in C.C.No.194/2021 of CDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. P. Sathisan)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

          This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in C.C.No.194/2021 challenging the final order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission for short) dated 22.07.2022 allowing the complaint.  The complainant is the respondent herein.  As per the order under appeal the appellant herein has been directed to return an amount of Rs.12,508.67/-(Rupees Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and Eight Sixty Seven Paise) and to pay a further amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation and an amount of Rs.2,500/-(Two Thousand Five Hundred) as costs.  If the amounts are not paid within a period of one month, interest @9% has been granted, on all amounts except the costs.  The parties are referred to herein according to their status before the District Commission.

          2.       The complainant had purchased a mobile phone in January 2020 for Rs.14,000/-(Rupees Fourteen Thousand) by availing a loan from the opposite party.  The complainant had issued a cheque of the HDFC bank to the opposite party.  On 10.01.2020 and on 12.08.2020 payments of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) each were made by the complainant from his account maintained with the HDFC bank.   Because of spread of the Corona, Covid 2019 the complainant was not able to pay the subsequent instalments to the bank.  According to the complainant, the opposite party had withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) from his account with the HDFC bank.  On 26.03.2021 one of the executives of the opposite party approached the complainant and collected Rs.10,200/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Two Hundred) from him.  Thus the complainant paid a total amount of Rs.20,200/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Two Hundred) to the opposite party towards the price of the mobile phone.  After that, the opposite party withdrew an amount of Rs.18,540/-(Rupees Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred and Forty) from the account of the complainant.  though the actual price of the mobile phone was only Rs.14,000/-(Rupees Fourteen Thousand).   The opposite party has thus collected nearly Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand).  According to him the conduct of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service.

          3.       Though notice was served on the opposite party by the District Commission, they did not appear or contest the case.  Therefore, the District Commission proceeded to consider the complaint after setting the opposite party exparte.  On an evaluation of the evidence on record it was found that the opposite party had overcharged the complainant to the tune of Rs.12,508.67/-(Rupees Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and Eight Sixty Seven Paise).  Therefore, the said amount has been directed to be paid to the complainant, as stated above.  The aggrieved opposite party is the appellant.

          4.       This appeal is posted before us for admission.  We have heard the counsel for the appellant.  We have also considered the contentions of the opposite party anxiously.

          5.       According to the counsel for the appellant, no proper notice was served on them by the District Commission and no reasonable opportunity was afforded to them to put forward their case.  According to the learned counsel, the appellant has cogent evidence to prove his case and therefore, it is necessary that an opportunity is provided to him to place and prove his case.  For the purpose, the counsel seeks a remand of the case to the District Commission, after setting aside the order appealed against, for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

          6.       Though it is contended that no proper notice was served on the appellant, we notice that according to the District Commission, as specifically stated in the order appealed against, the appellant had received notice and despite receipt of notice, he did not appear before the Commission.  Therefore, he was set exparte.  The appellant has not been able to place any material or evidence before us to show that the above statement of the District Commission is wrong.  Therefore, we find no reason to accept the bald allegation of the appellant that no notice was served on them.

          7.       On the merits we find that the District Commission has considered the evidence on record.  It has been found on the basis of Exhibits P1 to P4 documents that the complainant had proved the payments of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) each on 10.01.2020 and 12.08.2020.  However the District Commission has found that there was no evidence to prove payment of the amount of Rs.10,200/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Two Hundred) to the representative of the appellant.  Therefore the said contention of the complainant has been rejected.  Exhibit P4 evidences payment of an amount of Rs.15,481/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty One).  Therefore, the total amount paid by the complainant has been computed to be Rs.28,989.67/-(Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Nine Sixty Seven Paise).  On the basis of the above calculation, the District Commission has found that excess amount had been collected from the respondent.  Therefore, the excess amount collected has been ordered to be returned.  We do not find any error or infirmity in the said finding of the District Commission.  The said finding is therefore confirmed.

          8.       The conduct of the appellant in collecting excess amounts as interest exceeding even the principle amount amounts to unfair trade practice.  Therefore, the District Commission has awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) which cannot be described as excessive or exorbitant in any manner.  The costs ordered to be paid is also reasonable.  For the above reasons, we do not find any grounds to admit this appeal or to grant the reliefs sought for.

          In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.

SL