Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1306/2015

Pargat Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Garg Watch Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ajay Bansal

07 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                    Complaint no. 1306                                                                                              

                                                                    Instituted on:  15.10.2015

                                                                   Decided on:    07.06.2016

 

Pargat Singh aged 50 years son of Shri Bachan Singh r/o village Khadiyal, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.    

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

1.   M/s Garg Watch Company, Railway Road, Sunam, District Sangrur through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Managing Director Mr. Mohit Kumar.

2. Mr. Mohit Kumar as proprietor/ partner/ Managing Director of M/s Garg Watch Company, Railway road, Sunam, District Sangrur.

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT       :    Shri Ajay Bansal,  Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES         :     Shri   Vinay Jindal,  Advocate                          

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Pargat Singh complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a mobile phone  of Intex company  from OPs for Rs.1680/- vide bill number 448 dated 28.08.2015 under one year warranty. The  complainant paid Rs.1000/- in cash and  the OPs kept  the old mobile along with charger  of same company for an amount of Rs.680/- for remaining amount. After few days, the said mobile started giving problem then the OPs after receiving mobile set gave a new mobile of Karbon K-490  to the complainant  and made correction in the previous bill regarding the price  of new mobile. Thereafter the complainant came to know that OPs gave him mobile of lower price but did not refund the difference price amount. Then the complainant requested the OPs to refund the difference price amount but OPs did not pay the same. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to refund the balance difference  amount alongwith interest @24% per annum  and  also to return the 4 GB Memory card,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.10000/- as litigation expenses.

2.     In reply filed by the OPs,  legal objections on the grounds of maintainability,  cause of action,  locus standi and suppression of material facts have been taken up. On merits, it has been stated that  complainant  had purchased  mobile of Intex company  from the OP for Rs.1580/-  and paid Rs.1000/- in cash  and gave his old mobile for remaining amount of Rs.580/-  and OP gave discount of Rs.100/- to the complainant under bill number 448 dated 28.08.2015 .  It has been denied that the said mobile phone started giving problem and the complainant met with OP with any complaint . In fact the complainant just wants to change the model of mobile.  It is denied that the OP kept  any 4 GB memory card  of complainant.  In fact  the  OPs changed the mobile of the complainant with  new mobile set i.e. Karbon K 490  along with all accessories .  It is correct that OP made correction in the bill regarding  price of new mobile set and OP immediately refunded the  amount of Rs.190/-  as difference amount after changing the mobile.  The price of Karbon K 490 was Rs.1390/- . The OP red0.uced the amount of Rs.1390/- from Rs.1580/- and after making correction in the bill refunded Rs.190/- to the complainant. At that time  mechanic Lakhwinder son of Charan Singh resident of Sunam was present at the shop of the OP.  It has been further stated that the complainant is very clever man and he just wants to grab money by black mailing and by filing false complaint against the OP.  It is not possible that any shopkeeper will spoil  his goodwill and reputation for just Rs.190/- . Further, the complainant  has not handed over any 4GB memory card to the OP then the question of returning  the same does not arise. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed evidence. On the  other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP-1  and Ex.OP-2 and closed evidence.

4.             In the present case, it is not disputed on record that firstly the complainant had purchased a mobile phone of Intex  company and after that he changed the same with another mobile of Karbon company from the OPs. The controversy in the present case is only with regard to the refund of difference price amount i.e. Rs.190/- to the complainant by the OPs and return of the memory card of 4 GB.

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties we find that the complainant has produced on record copy of bill dated 28.08.2015 Ex.C-2 wherein  it has only been mentioned that the complainant has purchased a mobile of intex company for an amount of Rs.1580/- from the OPs after discount of Rs.100/-. Further we find that the complainant has not produced any receipt/ document issued by the OPs which shows that any memory card   has been handed over by the complainant to the OPs. So, the contention of the complainant regarding returning of the memory card by the OPs is rejected. The complainant has also produced copy of bill dated 28.08.2015 Ex.C-3. A bare perusal of it, we find that  there is mention of an amount of Rs.1390/- below the amount of Rs.1680/- and further an amount of Rs.100/- has been deducted.  The OPs has not produced any receipt/ document regarding refunding of difference of an amount of Rs.190/-  to the complainant.   As such, we feel that the complainant is entitled to receive difference price amount i.e. Rs.190/- from the OPs.

6.             For the reasons recorded above, We partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to pay difference  price amount i.e. Rs.190/- to the complainant . We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.1100/- on account of mental pain, agony and litigation expenses.

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                June 7, 2016

 

 

 

  ( Sarita Garg)    ( K.C.Sharma)          (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                        Member          Member                                President