By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:-
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs.1,006/- with 12% interest from 16.12.2013 till payment being the excess amount collected from the Complainant and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss sustained to the Complainant.
2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant purchased a Pioneer USB set car stereo from the Opposite Party on 16.12.2013 for a sum of Rs. 4,300/- as per bill No.540. When the Complainant brought the car stereo which is packed in a cover, the Complainant noticed that the MRP printed portion in the cover is deleted by Toring that part. Then the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party and asked about it, the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that they collected the actual price only. The Complainant enquired client the actual price in the market and came to understand that the actual price is Rs.3,294/- only. The Complainant demanded Rs.1,006/- from the Opposite Party being the excess price collected. But the Opposite Party not acted upon. The act of Opposite Party is unfair trade practice. Aggrieved by this , the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to Opposite party and Opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version, the Opposite Party contended that the Complainant did not purchase the alleged stereo from the Opposite Party as per Bill No.540 on 16.12.2013 for a sum of Rs.4,300/-. The allegation of the Complainant that the MRP portion in the cover was removed and the Complainant had enquired about it with Opposite Party is also denied. There is no unfair trade practice from the part of Opposite Party.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.
1. Whether there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of
Opposite party?
2. Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext.A1 to A3 and the stereo is marked as MO1. The Opposite Party also filed affidavit and is examined as OPW1, documents are marked as Exts.B1 to B3. Opposite Party's witnesses is examined as OPW2 and Ext.B4 is also marked. OPW2 is further examined and Ext.B5 series is also marked. In the cross- examination of PW1, the Opposite Party gave a suggestion to the Complainant that the actual price of the stereo is Rs.4,590/- and the price shown in the Ext.A1 bill is Rs.4,990/- including Rs.400/- as filling charges. But Opposite Party collected only Rs.4,300/- from the Complainant. From this suggestion, it is understood that the Opposite party had sold the car stereo to the Complainant for a sum of Rs.4,300/-. Ext.A2 is the warranty card issued by Opposite Party to the Complainant which contains the seal of Opposite Party. The Opposite Party admitted the issuance of Ext.A1 bill. The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party collected more price than the MRP. The Complainant produced Ext.B3 documents to prove that contention. The Opposite Party denied Ext.B3 document and stated that the website stated in the Ext.B3 document is not the official website of pioneer company. The Official Website of Poineer Company is stated in Ext.B3 brochure. So Ext.B3 document cannot be believed. The Opposite Party produced the price list for the year 2013 and 2014 and is marked as Ext.B1. In Ext.B1 the price ie MRP of stereo is stated as Rs.4,590/-. So by analysing the evidence, it is found that the Complainant failed to prove the contention that the Opposite party collected more price than stated as MRP. More over, the Opposite Party collected only Rs.4,300/- from the Complainant. The Opposite party stated that the actual price of stereo is Rs.4,590/-. The Opposite Party had shown Rs.4,990/- as price in Ext.A1. This 4,990/- includes the price of stereo and its fitment charge and wiring charge of Rs.400/-. Even though the total price including fitment charge and wiring charge is Rs.4,990/-, the Opposite Party collected only Rs.4,300/- from the Complainant. But on verifying Ext.A1 document, Ext.A1 document did not show separately the prices changed by the Opposite party. A bill should contain the real price of a product and the bill should be self explanatory. But in this case, the Ext.A1 bill is not proper and it is a confusing one. So the Forum found that the above act of Opposite party is nothing but unfair trade practice. So point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only to the Complainant and also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand ) only towards cost of the proceedings. The Opposite Party shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing with the Complainant is entitled for 12% interest per month for the whole amounts.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of June 2015.
Date of Filing:14.03.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Ajay Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Eldho. M.K. Shop (Business)
OPW2. Yoosuf. Salesman, Autocop India Pvt. Ltd., Calicut.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Quotation.
A2. Warranty Card. dt:16.12.2013.
A3. Notice.
Exhibits for the opposite Party.
B1. Scheme & Price List – After Market- Nov 2013.
B2. Cover.
B3. Brochure.
B4. Authorisation Letter. dt:03.02.2015.
B5(1) Notice.
B5(2) Certificate. dt:04.05.2015.
