Haryana

Kurukshetra

192/2016

Ram Balkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mehala Sanitary - Opp.Party(s)

Suresh Kumar

18 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.192/16.

Date of instt. 13.7.16. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 18.1.18.

 

Ram Balkar Singh son of Shankar Singh, resident of D-42, Sector-29, Global City, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, Kurukshetra.

       

                                          …Complainant. 

                        Versus      

 

1. Mehala Sanitary and hard-ware store, Opposite Goyal Gas Agency, Near Chhota Railway Station, Kurukshetra, through its Proprietor.
2. Ashivad Pipe Limited, 4-B, Attibete Industrial Area House Road, Bengaluru, Karnatka.      

 

…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

Before              Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

                        Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member.

        Smt. Viraj Pahil, Member.

 

Present:          Sh. Suresh Kumar Saini, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Ram Lal Mehala, Adv. for the OP No.1.

OP No.2 ex parte.

 

  

ORDER

 

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Ram Balkar against Mehala Sanitary and Hare-ware Store and another, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased hard ware and sanitary items from Op No.1, who is authorized distributor of OP No.2. OP No.1 had charged more than MRP from the complainant. The OP No.1 had prepared the bill bearing No.1057, No.1058 and No.1059 but did not hand over the same to the complainant despite demand. The OP No.1 had given only hand written slip on plain papers. The OP No.1 has charged the rates of items, articles more than the prevailing market rates and MRP quoted by the company. The complainant along with his son went to the shop of OP No.1 and complained about over charging of the rates of sanitary/plumbing items more than prevailing market rates and also more than MRP fixed by the company and requested to correct the bill and to refund the over charge amount, but OP No.1 did not pay any heed. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, the present complaint has been moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to refund the excess charged amount of Rs.1748/- and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.

3.             Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections alleging that the complaint against the answering OPs is not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts. The true facts are that the complainant never purchased any material/articles from the answering OP as alleged in the complaint, so the answering OP has no concern with the complainant. In fact, in routines course of business, someone came at the shop of answering OP and a rough estimate on his demand was got prepared but that very person has never purchased any articles from the answering OP. In concern of bill No.1057, No.1058 and No.1059 are not in the name of complainant, so the story put forward by the complainant is false, frivolous and concocted only to extort money from the answering Op. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied. Preliminary objections were repeated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.             Written statement of OP No.2 was received by post and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP; that the manufacture fixed the price only for the distributor and list concerned with the same how much amount are charging distributor and retailer from the complainant; that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as the answering OP has been unnecessary arrayed in the complaint as no relief has been claimed against the answering OP. On merits, it is submitted that no body can charge the price more than the printed MRP otherwise also no body will purchase the goods on more price than the printed MRP on the goods. There is no question of any unfair trade practice. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied. Preliminary objections were repeated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

5.            Both the parties have led their respective evidence.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties after remand of the case and have gone through the record carefully.

7.            It is argued by counsel for the complainant that OP No.1 had charged the rates of items, articles more than the prevailing market rates and MRP quoted by the company. He further argued that OP No.1 had prepared the bill bearing No.1057, No.1058 and No.1059 but did not hand over the same to the complainant despite demand and the OP No.1 had given only hand written slip on plain papers. In support of his version the complainant has placed on record photo stat copy of rough bill Ex.C1 as well as photo stat copy of M.R.P. List of items purchased by the complainant which shows that the OP No.1 had charged the excess amount in stead of the M.R.P. Price of the items, so the complainant is entitled to get refunded the amount which has been excessively charged by Op No.1.

8.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the Op No.1 being seller is directed to pay Rs.1748/- to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall be initiated against OP No.1 and in that case the complainant is entitled for the simple interest @ 6% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.1748/- from the date of order till its payment. File be consigned to record after due compliance.  

                 Copy of the order; be communicated to the parties, free of costs.      

 

Announced:    

Dt.18.1.18.                                              (G.C.Garg)

                                                             President

                                                District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra.

 

 

 

                                                   

       (Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)               (Viraj Pahil)       

            Member                                       Member