Haryana

Karnal

461/2013

Suresh Kumar Kashyap S/o Phool Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Gupta Cement Store - Opp.Party(s)

28 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.     

                                                                Complaint No. 461 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt.: 22.11.2013

                                                                Date of decision:30 .03.2016

 

Suresh Kumar Kashyap son of Shri Phool Singh resident of house no.395, ward No.2, Phurlak Road, near Gas Agency, Gharaunda district Karnal.

.                                                                               ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

M/s Gupta Cement Store, Railway Road, Gharaunda District Karnal through Mithan Gupta.

                                                                           ……… Opposite Party.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.            

                    Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:-       Sh.Suresh Kumar, complainant in person.

                    Sh.Mithan Gupta  Proprietor of Opposite Party.

ORDER:           

           

                     This  complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, (  hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the averments  that he purchased some  articles  from the shop of the Opposite Party for getting white washed his house alongwith  wall putty and other articles for Rs.9070/-. When he came to know that Opposite Party had charged more amount for the articles, he purchased the same articles from other shopkeeper namely M/s Vinod Kumar Sunil Kumar, railway road, Gharaunda and found that the Opposite Party had charged excess amount.  He had purchased articles from the Opposite Party vide bill NO.217 dated 24.10.2013 and from  Vinod Kumar, Sunil Kumar vide bill No.3348 dated 18.11.2013. The Opposite Party had charged Rs.430/-   per bag of Samocem mentioned at Sr.No.1 of the bill and total Rs.6020/- for 14 bags of samocem, whereas Vinod Kumar Sunil Kumar  charged Rs.350/- per bag. In this way the Opposite Party charged Rs.1160/-  excess amount for 14 bags of samocem. The Opposite Party had further charged Rs.900/- for four litres of brown paint, whereas M/s Vinod Kumar, Sunil Kumar charged Rs.840/- for four litres of brown paint.  The rate of paint as per bill of M/s Vinod Kumar, Sunil Kumar was Rs.210/- per litre, but the Opposite Party had charged Rs.225/- per litre and Opposite Party had thus charged Rs.60/-  as excess amount  for four litres of paint.  Thus, in respect of two items the Opposite Party had charged Rs.1180/- in excess from him.  When he complained to the Opposite Party  regarding excess charging, he (Opposite Party) was not ready to hear  and told him that “Jaa Tune jo kuch karna ho karle maine to jyada paise lene  the ley liya”.  Due to  such act of the Opposite Party,  he suffered mental tension and harassment.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Party through registered post,  but none  put into appearance on his behalf , therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against him, vide order dated 5.3.2014.

 

3.                The complainant in his exparte evidence filed his affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Mange Ram Pal  son of Sadhu Ram Ex.C2 and documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 .

 

4.                When the case was fixed for hearing exparte arguments, the   Opposite Party was  directed to produce  the documents regarding sale of material alongwith details of items mentioned in bill No.217 dated 24.10.2013 alongwith Maximum Retail Price of  each items, vide order dated 15.10.2015, by exercising the powers as provided u/s 13(4)(ii) of the Act.

 

                   In pursuance of the said order, the Opposite Party appeared and filed rate list issued by Nerolac  paints effective from 26.4.2012 and rate list issued by Sun Coating and Chemicals Company w.e.f. 1.02.2012.

 

5.                We have heard the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                 As per the case of the complainant, he purchased some articles from the Opposite Party vide bill No.217 dated 24.10.2013. The Opposite Party charged Rs.430/- per bag of samocem and Rs.900/- for four litres of brown paint, whereas M/s Vinod Kumar Sunil Kumar charged Rs.350/- per bag of samocem and Rs.840/- for four litres of brown paint. In this way, the Opposite Party charged Rs.1180/- as excess amount from him.

 

7.                The complainant has produced bill no.217 dated 24.10.2013 Ex.C3 issued by the Opposite Party for an amount of Rs.9070/- As per the said bill Samocem,  paint and some other articles were  purchased by the complainant.  However, the complainant has raised dispute only with regard to the rate of samocem and paint charged by the Opposite Party.  The bill Ex.C3 shows that Opposite Party had charged Rs.430/- per bag for 14 bags of samocem i.e. total amount of Rs.6020/- and Rs.900/- for four litres of brown paint.

 

8.                The complainant has also produced the bill No.3348 dated 18.11.2013 Ex.C4 issued by M/s Vinod Kumar Sunil Kumar. the estimate Ex.C5   prepared by Sethi Paint Railway Road and estimate list Ex.C6  prepared by Mahinder Pal, railway road Gharaunda.  M/s Vinod Kumar Sunil Kumar in the bill Ex.C4 mentioned the rate of samocem per bag as Rs.350/- and for four litres of  brown paint as Rs.840/- . Sethi Paints  in the estimate Ex.C5 gave the rate of samocem  as Rs.300/- per bag and of four litres  paint as Rs.800/- Mahinderpal in the estimate list Ex.C6 gave the rate of samocem  per bag as Rs.350/- and of four liters of brown paint as Rs.820/-.

 

9.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset  that in the bill Ex.C3 issued by Opposite Party, the brand names or the names of the manufacturer of samocem and paint were not mentioned. Even the complainant has  neither pleaded in the complaint  nor led any evidence which may show as to which brand of samocem and paint were purchased by him from the Opposite Party.  No maximum retail price of samocem or paint, which were purchased by the complainant has been produced by the complainant in order to show that the Opposite Party had charged more amount than the maximum retail price.

 

10.               In the documents Ex.C4 to Ex.C6 also , it was not clarified  as to rates of which brand of samocem and  paint were mentioned therein. The rates regarding samocem and paint are  different in bill Ex.C4 and estimates Ex.C5 and Ex.C6. It is not clear from Ex.C4 to Ex.C6 as to what was the maximum retail price of the samocem and paint sold by the Opposite Party to the complainant. The Opposite Party did not charge vat extra from the complainant and he mentioned the rates only whereas Ex.C4 indicates that M/s Vinod Kumar Sunil Kumar charged Rs.13.13% VAT on the articles sold to the complainant. If 13.13% VAT is added to  the rate of four litres of paint i.e. Rs.840/- , the total amount would be more than Rs.900/-, which was actually charged by the Opposite Party from the complainant.

 

11.               The Opposite Party has produced the rate list issued by Nerolac Paints effective from 26.4.2012, according to which the rate of four litres of brown paint was mentioned as Rs.928/- .The Opposite Party has also produced the copy of the rate list issued by Sun Coating and Chemical Co. effective from 1.2.2012, according to which the rate of 20 Kgms. of samocem was Rs.450/-. The Opposite Party had charged less amount  in respect of the samocem as well as paint as mentioned in the above said rate lists.

 

12.               In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in concluding that the complainant has altogether failed to establish that the Opposite Party had charged  more amount than the maximum retail price of the samocem and paint sold   to him vide bill Ex.C3 dated 24.10.2013. Thus, there was no unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

 

 

 

 

13.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any  merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:30.03.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

Present:-       Sh.Suresh Kumar, complainant in person.

                    Sh.Mithan Gupta  Proprietor of Opposite Party.

 

                   The Opposite Party has produced the copy of rate list of sun coating and chemical company. Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 30.03.2016.

 

Announced
dated:28.03.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

Present:-       Sh.Suresh Kumar, complainant in person.

                    Sh.Mithan Gupta  Proprietor of Opposite Party.

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:30.03.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.