BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.341 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 22.08.2019

      Date of Decision: 01.08.2023

Rajiv Kumar Sharma aged about 40 years son of Sh. Daya Nand Sharma R/o H. No.2, Gali No.1, New Shital Nagar, Near DAV College, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Mobile House C/o H. O. Chadha Mobile House Pvt. Ltd., Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar, through its Prop./Partner.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:         Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj            (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)

Present:       Sh. Manit Malhotra, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Rajneesh Khanna, Adv. Counsel for OP.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant approached the OP who deals in mobile phones, spares, accessories, electronic goods etc. The complainant after going through the products displayed in the showroom of the OP purchased Samsung Mobile A-30 4/64 GB vide invoice No.T/19-20/16151 dated 06.08.2019 for Rs.13,900/-. The complainant decided to make the payment through credit card of HDFC Bank, but the OP No.1 debited Rs.14,100/- from the credit card of the complainant against the bill of Rs.13,900/-. The complainant objected to the OP from charging Rs.200/- excess in the bill amount, but the OP did not listen the request of the complainant and said that when customer makes payment through credit card, the OP charges 2% extra from the bill amount. The complainant requested the OP that charging above the bill amount is against business ethics, but the OP refused to accede the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant requested the OP that the deduction of overcharged amount is illegal but they refused to accede the genuine request of the complainant. As such, the OP is involved in unfair trade practice, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the OP has also committed unfair trade practice towards the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to return the overcharged amount of Rs.200/- deducted the bill amount by the OP alongwith interest with immediate effect. Further, the OP be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. It is further averred that the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The present complaint filed by the complainant against the OP without impleading the partner/proprietor of OP which is very bad in eyes of law. It is further averred that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the answering OP just in order to harass and to indulge the answering OP into unwanted litigation. It is further averred that the present complaint is false, frivolous and baseless and has been wrongly filed by the complainant against the answering OP and there is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the answering OP as alleged by the complainant. It is further averred that the complainant has concealed the true material facts from this Court. The true facts of the case are that the complainant on dated 6/8/2019 approached the answering OP and has told the answering OP that he has come to purchase Samsung Mobile A-30 4/64 GB and MI USB Cable 120 CM. The complainant after seeing the said mobile and MI USB Cable 120 Cm and after fully satisfied from the function of the said mobile and MI USB Cable 120 CM has purchased the said mobile of Rs. 13900/- vide invoice No.T/19- 20/16151 dated 6/8/2019 and MI USB Cable 120 of Rs.200/- vide invoice No. 7/19 20/16152 dated 6/8/2019 total amounting to Rs.14,100/-. The complainant after the purchase of the said mobile and MI USB Cable 120 CM made the total payment of Rs.14,100/- from his credit card. The answering OP never debited Rs.14,100/- from the credit card of the complainant against the bill of Rs.13,900/- as alleged. The answering OP has never charged the alleged Rs.200/- from the complainant and has never charged the alleged 2% extra from the bill amount as alleged. The complainant since the date of purchase of said mobile and MI USB Cable 120 CM has never issued any notice regarding the alleged debit of 14,100/- from his credit card against the bill of Rs.13,900/-. The complainant has concocted false, frivolous and baseless story just to harass, humiliate and to indulge the OP into unwanted litigation. The present complaint is nothing but an abuse of law and there is no deficiency in services on part of the OP as alleged in the present complaint by the complainant. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant approached the OP and had purchased the Samsung Mobile for Rs.13,900/-, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                It is admitted and proved fact that the complainant has purchased a mobile handset from the OP. Copy of the Invoice/Bill is Ex.C-1. The main grievance of the complainant is that the OP debited Rs.14,100/- through credit card instead of Rs.13,900/- and charged Rs.200/- in excess and this fact has been proved from Ex.C2 i.e. credit card swap transaction receipt, whereas the defence of the OP is that alongwith mobile handset for Rs.13,900/-, the complainant also purchased MI USB Cable 120 of Rs.200/- as per Ex.OP-1, which comes total Rs.14,100/- and paid the total amount from his credit card.

7.                After considering the overall circumstances and documents produced by both the parties Ex.C-1, Ex.C-2 and Ex.OP-1, one thing is clear that the complainant has purchased the mobile handset from the OP for a sum of Rs.13,900/- and one MI USB Cable 120 cm amounting to Rs.200/-, from where it is clear that the OP charged Rs.200/- for USB Cable. The complainant on the other hand failed to prove that Rs.200/- was charged in excess.

8.                So, from all the angles the complainant has failed to prove his case as well as deficiency in service on the part of the OP and thus, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

01.08.2023         Member                          Member           President