Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/404/2016

Mr. Ashwani Gautam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Hitachi Home & LifeSolutions (India) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	404/2016
Date of Institution	08.06.2016
Date of Decision	12.08.2016

 

                            

 

 

                                                         

Ashwani Gautam s/o Lt. V.P. Gautam # 5073/2, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh -160101.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

M/s Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I) Ltd., 2013, Phase-I, Industrial Area,  Chandigarh -160002.

…. Opposite Party.

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:   Complainant in person.

                        OP exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a AC remote make Hitachi from the OP vide bill dated 02.06.2016. It has been averred that the OP had charged a sum of Rs.1250/- against the MRP of Rs.1100/- printed on the wrapper/package of the AC remote which is illegal and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  He raised the protest regarding the same with the OP but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           Despite due service through registered post, the OP failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated  27.07.2016.
3.           We have heard the complainant, in person, and have gone through the documents on record.
4.           In his exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered his detailed affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint.  Annexure C-I is the copy of the invoice dated 02.06.2016 vide which the OP had sold the AC remote in question to the complainant for a sum of Rs.1250/-.  Annexure C-III is a copy of the price tag of the AC remote in question in which the MRP (inclusive of all taxes) of the same was mentioned at Rs.1100/-. It is thus evident that the OP had indulged into unfair trade practice by overcharging a sum of Rs.1,50/- against the MRP of Rs.1100/- which is inclusive of all taxes.
5.           Moreover, the very connotation printed on the goods namely ‘MRP’ leaves no manner of doubt that any trader or person in possession of such articles or goods with an intention to sell it to the consumer has no right to charge more than what is printed thereon.  In this view of the matter, the act of the Opposite Party in selling the AC remote more than the value mentioned on its price tag is highly unscrupulous, unfair trade practice and as also deficiency in service on its part. 
6.           Furthermore, the OP despite due service through registered post did not care to contest the case and, as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either it admits the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter.   Hence, the OP is proved to have been indulged into unfair trade practice by overcharging the price of the article in question.
7.           In view of the foregoing reasons, the present complaint is allowed with a direction to the Opposite Party to refund the difference of the price of the saree i.e. Rs.150/- and to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. 
8.           This order be complied with by the Opposite Party, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the awarded amounts shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.
9.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12.08.2016

 

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

cmg