DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 62 of 25-02-2009<br /> Decided on : 03 07-2009 <br /> <br /> Lakhvinder Singh aged about 31 years S/o Sh. Hari Singh Ladhoke, R/o Village Mehraj, Patti Kala, Tehsil Phul, District Bthinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> M/s. Kissan Auto Mobiles, G.T. Road, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner Pappi Singh<br /> <br /> ... Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member <br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. H.S. Dhanoa, Advocate, counsel for the complainant<br /> For the Opposite party : Sh. Jaspal Singh Sidhu, Advocate, counsel for opposite party. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant Sh. Lakhvinder Singh, has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') with the allegations that he approached the opposite party for purchase of some parts of his tractor make 'John Deere' including diesel filter, engine oil, C.L. Oil, element, filter, oil filter and switch tune for a consideration of Rs. 3700/- against Bill No. 295 dated<br /> 03-11-2008. The complainant paid total amount in cash. Later on, he was shocked to know that the opposite party has charged excess amount from him than the actual amount of above said articles illegally and arbitrarily. The actual price of element filter is Rs. 695/- only but the opposite party charged Rs. 700/- and for oil filter, he charged Rs. 200/- against actual value of Rs. 199/-. Similarly engine oil 8-1/2 ltrs. was sold to him by the opposite party for Rs. 1690/- against actual value of Rs. 1683/-. In this way, the opposite party has charged Rs. 13/- in excess from the complainant than the actual price of the articles. The complainant approached the opposite party and asked him the reason for charging an excess amount of Rs. 13/- than the actual rate of said article and also shown him the copy of the pamphlet regarding the rates of the articles, but the opposite party failed to give any satisfactory reply and also refused to reimburse the excess amount charged. The complainant has alleged that he has been put to unnecessary mental tension, botheration, harassment, humiliation due to the adamant conduct of the opposite party for which he is entitled for the reasonable amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. The opposite party has also forced the complainant to file this complaint to go for forced litigation for which he is also entitled for litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The opposite party contested the allegations raising legal objections that; the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the complaint; complaint is not maintainable in the present form; it is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party; ;it has been filed on false, frivolous and vexatious facts and is liable to the dismissed.<br /> On merits, the assertion of the complainant with regard to charging of excess amount is not specifically contested rather he has contested to the extent that the opposite party has no concern with <br /> M/s. Kisan Automobiles and he is neither Proprietor nor Partner nor Manager of the said concern. He asserts that he is not liable either to reimburse the excess amount or to pay any compensation or litigation expenses.<br /> 3. Both the parties in order to prove their respective assertions led their respective evidence.<br /> 4. The complainant has filed his own two affidavits Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-6, photocopies of card boxes Ex. C-2, Ex. C-3 and Ex. C-5, photocopy of label of basket Ex. C-4, copy of legal notice Ex. C-7, postal receipt and acknowledgement Ex. C-8 & Ex. C-9 respectively and photocopy of Invoice dated 03-11-2008 Ex. C-10.<br /> 5. The opposite party in evidence filed his affidavit Ex.R.1.<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have perused the entire record of the case very carefully.<br /> 7. It appears from the affidavit of the complainant Ex. C-1 that he visited the premises of Kisan Automobiles, an authoised dealer of John Deere Equipments Private Limited and purchased six articles as detailed in Invoice/bill dated 03-11-2008 Ex. C-10. The claim of the complainant is that on various articles, as referred to herein above, excess amount has been charged by the opposite party who issued bill Ex. C-10 under his signatures and to whom he has paid the amount of Rs. 3700/- in cash. It is also proved from the affidavits of the complainant Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-6 that when he came to know about the charging of excess amount as compared to actual value of the articles purchased by him, he approached the opposite party and asked him the reasons as to why he has been charged excess amount than the actual rate of the articles as shown in the bill Ex. C-10, but he has not given any explanation and his request for reimbursement of the amount of Rs. 13/- charged in excess has not not been acceded to.<br /> 8. The stand taken by the opposite party in his affidavit Ex. R-1 reveals that he has not contested the charging of excess amount of Rs. 13/- as per bill Ex. C-10 from the complainant rather he tried to<br /> dis-associate himself from M/s. Kisan Automobiles as he has stated in his affidavit Ex. R-1 that he has no concern with the firm M/s. Kisan Automobiles, G.T. Road, Rampura Phul and he is neither partner nor proprietor of the said firm. He is also not the Manager of the said firm and has been falsly implicated in the case. He has not denied the issuance of bill Ex. C-10 to the complainant or the sale of articles mentioned therein. The opposite party has also not disputed that he has not received an amount of Rs. 3700/- in cash from the complainant.<br /> 9. From the bill Ex. C-10, it appears that bill Ex. C-10 is in the hand-writing of the opposite party and he has also signed the same as Proprietor/Manager. Simply because the opposite party has tried to dis-associate himself from the firm known as M/s. Kisan Automobiles, will not help him to absolve him from his liability for charging an excess amount from the complainant because he has failed to explain as to under what circumstances, he put his signatures on bill Ex. C-10 and in which capacity he has received an amount of Rs. 3700/- from the complainant. The stand taken by the opposite party, thus appears to be totally unsustainable. If the opposite party would not have any connection with M/s. Kisan Automobiles, there would have been no reason for him either to sign the bill Ex. C-10 or to receive the amount of Rs. 3700/- in cash from the complainant. The charging of excess amount of Rs. 13/- is not at all in dispute. <br /> 10. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts, circumstances and the material available on record especially the attitude and conduct of the opposite party in denying the liability despite the fact that he issued bill Ex. C-10, go to show that he had no remorse for his conduct towards the complainant on account of which, he forced the complainant to go for this forced litigation. Thus, we are of the view that complainant under these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case is entitled for the refund of Rs. 13/- charged in excess from him, alongwith interest @9% P.A. from the date of payment/bill i.e. 03-11-2008 till realisation. Since the complainant has been put to unnecessary harassment and humilitation and forced to go for this forced litigation, he is also entitled for damages to the tune of Rs. 200/- besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 500/-.<br /> The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be indexed and consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 03-07-2009 <br /> <br /> (George)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br />