DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 12 of 17.1.2017

                                      Decided on:           5.1.2018

S.S.Aujla ( Retd.Wing Commander) aged 86 years, “ Aujla House”, No.4 New Officers Colony, Rikhi Dev Marg, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

M/s Anand Hearing Care Pvt. Ltd. through Sh.T.S.Anand, SCO 28, 1^st Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh-160020.

2^nd Address: Shop No.5, New Leela Bhawan Complex, next to Dr.Dinesh Pathology Laboratory, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Anil Puri,Advocate,counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Mayank Malhotra, Advocate,

                                         counsel for opposite party                               

 ORDER

                                        SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Sh.S.S.Aujla, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs

1. To pay Rs.1,80,000/- the price  of the CIC device alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of its purchase i.e. 24.6.2016;
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment
3. To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses and
4. To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.

and that the OP was under no obligation to take back the hearing aids after the expiry of the 7 days trial period but did so only on humanitarian grounds.

It is however admitted thatreturn memo no.402 date 30.11.2016 was prepared and it was finalized that the OP would return Rs.1,35,000/- after deducting the 25% of the total amount and accordingly returned the said amount to the complainant in cash. After receipt of the said amount, the complainant gave his signatures on the material return note. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

The ld.counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Trilocan Singh Anand, MD of OP alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP5 and closed the evidence of the OP.

It may be stated here that thedocument on which the OP is placing reliance regarding refund of the amountof Rs.1,35,000/- in cash, to the complainantis a Material Return Note and cannot said to be acash receipt . Under the VAT regime, it is incumbent on the part of the seller to prove that he has received back the material sold. In this context, as a token of proof of return of the material, the OP got the signatures of the complainant on the Material Return Note. It only says that the goods have been returned back but it nowhere shows that the complainant has received the amount of refund on return of the goods. It is of a common knowledge that in commercial establishments like that of the OP, the paymentis made against duly signed receipt or atleastvoucher is prepared and got signed from the person receiving the payment for accounting purposes. The Material Return Note, thus cannot be treated as receipt/voucher for payment given back to the complainant on account of return of hearing aid. All the documents produced, like certificate of Chartered Accountant, copy of one leaf of ledger account are OP’s own/self prepared documents, the veracity of which cannot be determined in the absence of any receipt of payment, given by the complainant. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that OP has failed to place on record any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that it had paid Rs.1,35,000/- to the complainant. Since the OP has sold the hearing aid to the complainant which was medically not fit for his use, therefore, we do not hesitate to conclude that the OP has committed deficiency in rendering the services to the complainant and is liable to refund the entire cost of said hearing aid i.e. Rs.1,80,000/- alongwith interest, because no plausible reason has been given by the OP as to why it wanted to deduct 25% of the amount from the actual price of the hearing aid. Even no agreement regarding payment of Rs.1,35,000/- to the complainant, as alleged by the OP has been placed on record. The OP is also liable to pay compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant and cost of litigation.

1. To refund the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @7% per annum from 30.11.2016, the date of receiving back the hearing aid;

2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment to him;

3. To pay Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.

The OP is further directed to comply the order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:5.1.2018         

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER