Punjab

Sangrur

CC/136/2018

Gaganjot Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max Autos - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Udit Goyal

03 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

               

                                               

                                                Complaint No.  136

                                                Instituted on:    19.03.2018

                                                Decided on:       03.10.2018

 

Gaganjot Singh son of Sh. Sukhjiwan Singh, resident of F-132, Officer Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant.

                                Versus

1.     MAX Autos (Authorised Dealer of Maruti Udyog Limited Gurgaon) Dhuri Road, Sangrur, through its Manager.

2.     Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Spare Parts Division, Palam – Gurgaon Road, Haryana through its Managing Director.            

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Udit Goyal, Advocate.

For OP No.1             :       Shri Saurav Garg, Adv.

For OP No.2             :       None.

 

 

Quorum:   Inderjit Kaur, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member.

1                      Shri Gaganjot Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by purchasing one Aroma Aromatic car Scent (Perfume) for his car from the OP number 1 vide bill number 965 dated 30.1.2018 for Rs.100/-. The said product is of the OP number 2. But the grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 1 charged Rs.100/- for the said product vide bill dated 30.1.2018, whereas  MRP of the said product was only Rs.99/-, which is totally illegal and amounts to unfair trade practice as the OP number 1 charged the more price than the MRP printed on the product.  The complainant immediately brought the matter to the knowledge of the OP number 1 for refund of the amount of Rs.1/-, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund to the complainant  an amount of Rs.1/- charged by it in excess and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In written reply filed by OP number 1, it is denied that the OP number 1 charged an amount of Rs.1/- in excess from the complainant. However, it is stated that it is a general principle in the business world to round of an amount and in the present case also the rounded of amount has been paid by the complainant as the MRP was Rs.99/-. It is denied that the complainant ever brought the matter in the knowledge of the OP number 1 and requested for refund of the amount of Rs.1/- from the OP number 1.  It is further stated that when the complainant brought the matter in the knowledge of the OP number 1, the OP number 1 immediately refunded Rs.1/- to the complainant.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has impleaded the OP number 2 without any reason, cause of action or justification and the complainant did not enter with any transaction with the OP number 2.It is further stated that the alleged transaction of purchase of product was between the complainant and OP number 1 and the OP number 2 neither has any privity nor received any consideration for the same. That the complainant is not a consumer qua OP number 2 and that the complaint is said to be frivolous and vexatious in nature and should be dismissed and it is stated further that the complaint is not maintainable.   However, the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 copy of disputed product and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has tendered Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP1/3 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased one Aroma Aromatic car scent (perfume) for his car from the OP number 1 for Rs.100/- , as is evident from the copy of bill Ex.C-2 on record. Ex.C-3 is a copy of wrapper of  Aroma Refresh your journey product showing that the printed MRP on the same was Rs.99/- only whereas the OP has charged Rs.100/- for the product, meaning thereby the OP number 1 charged Rs.1/- in excess than the MRP on the product.    In the present case, though the learned counsel for the OP number 1  has denied that the amount of Rs.1/- was  charged in excess, but it is proved from the copy of wrapper Ex.C-3 that the OP number 1 has charged Rs.1/- in excess as is evident from the copy of wrapper of product, Ex.C-2.  Thus, it is beyond any doubt that the OP number 1 has charged Rs.1/- in excess from the complainant for the product as mentioned above. In the present case, the OP number 1 did not even opt to refund to the complainant the excess amount of Rs.1/- to the complainant, though it is mentioned in the reply that an amount of Rs.1/- has already been refunded, but no such receipt of the complainant has been produced on record.  There is no explanation from the side of OP number 1 that why it did not produce the same.  Under the circumstances, we find it to be a clear cut case of unfair trade practice on the part of the OP number 1.   

 

7.             The learned counsel for the OP number 1 has contended vehemently that there was not any intention on the part of the OP number 1 to charge any excess amount, nor the complainant ever brought to the notice of the OPs about the excess charging, as such, it is stated that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1.  But, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the OP number 1, when it is proved on record that the OP number 1 has charged Rs.1/- only in excess of MRP.

8.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 1 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.1/- and further to pay to the complainant compounded amount of Rs.2,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony  and litigation expenses. 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                October 3, 2018.

                                                       

                                                           (Inderjit Kaur)

                                                         Presiding Member

 

 

                                                          (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                     Member