M/S AMBA ELECTRICS(AMBALA WALA). V/S NARINDER RANA. - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Panchkula

CC/329/2019

NARINDER RANA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S AMBA ELECTRICS(AMBALA WALA). - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP KAUSHIK

22 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

Consumer Complaint No	:	329 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	10.06.2019
Date of Decision	:	22.08.2022

Narinder Rana, aged 39 years s/o Sh. Suhash Chand, resident of Village Sultanpur, P.O.Jalouli, Teshil & District Panchkula.

..….Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Amba Electrics (Ambala wala) Raipur Rani Barwala, District Panchkula-134118 through its proprietor

2. Harjinder Gupta, proprietor of M/s Amba Electrics (Ambala wala) Raipur Rani Barwala, District Panchkula- 134118.

……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

Before: Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

For the Parties: Sh. Sandeep Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Anirudh Kush, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1. The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that on 12.04.2019, the complainant had purchased a iron cloth press vide invoice bearing no.725 amounting to Rs.1,000/-. After paying the amount of Rs.1,000/- i.e. price of the press, OPs packed the press in a box having same model number and picture of this press upon it. The Maximum Retail Price(hereinafter referred to as MRP) on the box was already cut by OPs, when the complainant asked about it, they told that the MRP of press is more than Rs.1,000/-. It is stated that when the complainant returned home, he checked the price of this iron cloth press online on

2. Upon notices, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and vexatious, vague; no locus-sandi; the complainant has not come with clean hands; suppressed the material facts; and mis-joinder & non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is stated that MRP of press was more than Rs.1,000/- however OP charged only Rs.1000/- from the complainant. It is stated that the online are always different from the goods sold at the shop as online seller sold old manufacturing goods whereas the shopkeeper sold the fresh stock at shops. It is also stated that no legal notice has been received by the OPs. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and the complainant has not suffered any harassment or agony and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with document Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Annexure R-A and closed the evidence.

4. We have heard the learned counsels for the complainant as well as OPs No.1 & 2 and gone through the entire record available on file including written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as OPs, minutely and carefully.

5. There is no dispute qua purchase of iron cloth press of Phillips company by the complainant from OP No.1 vide bill no.735 dated 12.04.2019 amounting to Rs.1,000/-. Further, the quality and functioning of the said iron cloth press is also not disputed. The grievance of the complainant is that the OP no.1 had charged the price of iron cloth press in excess of its Maximum Retail Price in contravention of the provisions of the Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price)Act, 2006 wherein the charging beyond the maximum retail price(MRP) is not permissible. The learned counsel for the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint contended that the Ops has violated the provisions as contained in the Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price)Act, 2006, the Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976 and Rule 5(e) (1B) from under i.e. the Standard of Weights and Measures (Package Commodities)Amendment Rules, 2006, by charging the price in excess of the MRP as well as erasing the MRP as mentioned in Annexure C-2 & C-3. The learned counsel has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by directing the Ops to refund the price of the iron cloth press i.e. Rs.1,000/- alongwith the compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.21,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and litigation charges respectively.

6. The Ops resisted the complaint by raising the preliminary objections as well as on merits in its written statement. As per preliminary objections it is stated that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary party. The aforesaid objections have neither been pressed during arguments nor substantiated by any documentary evidence as to how the complainant has not approached the Consumer Commission with clean hands and as to how the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is also not clarified as to why the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint. The aforesaid objections are rejected being baseless and meritless.

7. The only submission on merits of the learned counsel for the Ops is that the price of the iron cloth press was more than Rs.1,000/- whereas the complainant has been charged only a sum of Rs.1,000/-. The learned counsel denying the contentions and assertions of the complainant has stated that there was no lapse and deficiency on the part of the Ops and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being baseless and meritless.

8. The question for adjudication in the present complaint is whether the OP had charged the amount of Rs.1000/- qua the price of the iron cloth press in question in excess of the MRP of the said product. Undisputedly, the charging of price by a seller beyond the MRP is not permissible as per provisions contained in Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price)Act, 2006. In the present complaint, the OP has merely denied about the charging of price in excess of MRP of the product. The OP has neither corroborated its contention nor substantiated its version by placing on record any adequate, credible and cogent evidence to disprove the contention of the complainant about the charging of the price by in excess of MRP. It is well settled legal proposition that mere bald assertions which are not corroborated and substantiated by any adequate, cogent and credible evidence do not carry any evidentiary value. Therefore, the contentions of the OP denying any lapses and deficiencies on its part while charging the amount of Rs.1,000/- qua the price of the said product is not tenable. On the other hand, it is the specific, consistent and categorical assertions of the complainant that the OP has contravened the provisions of Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price)Act, 2006 by charging the amount of Rs.1,000/- beyond the MRP of the product. The complainant has substantiated his version by placing on record Annexure C-4 wherein the rate of the product has been shown as Rs.870/-. The complainant has relied upon the rate as shown on the website i.e.

9. In the above stated factual and legal proposition, the lapses and deficiencies on the part of the Ops and their indulgence into unfair trade practice is well proved and thus, the Ops No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.

10. As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 & 2:-