Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/17/2

Hem Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s G.G.S. Marbles & Hardware Store - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gagandeep Arora, Adv.

05 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  02 of 20.01.2017

                                 Date of decision                    :      05.09.2017

 

Hem Raj, son of Shri Ram Kishan, resident of Village Lalpur, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

M/s G.G.S. Marbles & Hardware Store, Jhajj Chowk, Anandpur Sahib Road, Village Jhajj, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar, through its Proprietor                                                                                                                                                                             ....Opposite Party

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh.Gagandeep Arora, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

Sh. Hemant Chaudhary, Adv. counsel for O.P.

 

ORDER

                                  MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Sh. Hem Raj through his counsel 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.P.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To refund the excessive amount of Rs.4730/- charged from him 

ii)      To pay Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him

iii)     To pay Rs.15000 as litigation expenses.

2.          In brief the case of the complainant is that the O.P.  is running a business of Marble and hardware under the name and style, G.G.S. Marbles & Hardware Store, at Jhajj Chowk, Anandpur Sahib Road, Village Jhajj, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar. He had purchased five articles i.e. wall and floor tiles etc, from the O.P. vide bill No.591 dated 12.12.2016 and in total paid Rs.15,990/-, inclusive VAT of Rs.2000/- charged @ 14.3%. After seeing the boxes of tiles, he came to know that the O.P. had charged more amount than the MRP printed on the boxes of the tiles. An amount of Rs.195/- had been printed on the box of tiles of size of 16’’ X 16’’, whereas the O.P. had charged Rs.370/- per box. Similarly, the MRP on the box of wall tiles of size of 10’’ X 15’’, Rs.190/- had been printed, but it charged Rs.200/- per box and it has charged Rs.1040/- per box for the block tiles, instead of Rs.700/, the MRP printed on the box of block tiles. As such, the O.P. had charged Rs.4730/- in excess from him. He requested the O.P. to refund the excess amount charged from him, but it did not pay any heed to his request. Hence this complaint.

3.          On being put to the notice, the O.P. has filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; that the complaint has been filed by the complainant with ulterior motive to grab money from the O.P.; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.; that this Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the complaint; that the present complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law to harass and blackmail the O.P.; that the definition of complainant complaint consumer dispute and service as defined in section 2(1) of the said act do not cover the aforesaid definition, the complainant is not consumer and the controversy involved in the complaint is not a consumer dispute; that the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. On merits, it is stated that actually the complainant had purchased the goods worth of Rs.1,00,000/- but the son of the proprietor of the O.P. had wrongly issued the bill of Rs.15,990/-. This fact was brought to the knowledge of the complainant and he was asked to pay the due amount. The complainant instead of paying the amount for the items purchased by him had threatened the proprietor of the O.P. and told him that that he would file a complaint against him. It is further stated that it had not charged any amount over and above the MRP. The boxes of tiles, which the complainant had annexed along with complaint, were not of the same tiles which he had purchased from it. It is not selling the product, whose boxes of the tiles have been annexed along with the complaint. The bill dated 12.12.2016 had wrongly been issued because the item mentioned at serial No.3 is of 165 boxes of block tiles of size of 600’’ X 600’’. The unit price of each box is of Rs.650/- but mistakenly it has been written as Rs.65, the actual price of all the 165 boxes of block tiles, comes out to be Rs.1,07,250/-, whereas, in the bill dated 12.12.2016, it is wrongly mentioned as Rs.1040/-. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal thereof.

4.     On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Surinder Singh, Proprietor of GGS Marbles and Hardware Store Ex.OP1 along with documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence.  

 5.  We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file carefully.

6.   The plea of the complainant is that the O.P. had charged more amount from him than the MRP printed on the boxes of the tiles purchased by him. On the contrary, the stand of the O.P. is that it had not charged any amount in excess from the complainant. In support of their case, both the parties have tendered some documents. From the perusal of bill dated 12.12.2016, Ex.C2, it is evident that the brand/make of the tiles purchased by the complainant has not been mentioned in the said bill. As per the said bill, the complainant purchased 165 boxes of block tiles of size 600’’ X 600" and the unit price of each box has been mentioned as Rs.65/- and if we calculate the total amount for the said block tiles, it comes out to be Rs.10,725/, whereas at serial No.3, the amount of the said item has been mentioned as Rs.1040/- only. As such, the said bill cannot be said to be correct and proper. The cardboard boxes of the tiles, tendered by both the parties in their evidence are of different manufacturing companies. The complainant has neither mentioned in the complaint, the brand/make of the tiles, which he purchased from the O.P. nor he has placed on record any document in the shape of report/ statement of the mason to the effect that he had affixed the block tiles of 600’’ X 600’’ manufactured by Simpolo Vitrified Pvt. Ltd, Ex.C5, wall tiles of 10’’ X 15’’ manufactured by Pentagon Ceramic,  Ex.C6, floor tiles, 16’’ X 16” (397 X 397 mm) manufactured by Suzlon Ceramic, Ex.C7 in the premises of the complainant. It may be stated that on the basis of the documents discussed above, it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion that as to of which quality of tiles, the complainant had purchased from the O.P. and it had charged any amount in excess from him.  To arrive at any affirm conclusion, elaborate evidence is required which can only be adduced in Civil Court and it will not be possible for this Forum to decide the case properly as the proceedings before this Forum are summary in nature. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court for redressal of his grievance, if so advised.

7. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                   ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

                   Dated .05.09.2017                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                    (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                       MEMBER