Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1226/2015

Balwinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shree Ganesh Traders - Opp.Party(s)

Shri R.K. Singla

03 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                       Complaint No. 1226

Instituted on:    06.10.2015

                                                                        Decided on:      03.02.2016

 

 

Balwinder Kumar (LIC) son of Shri Ramesh Kumar, resident of Roshan Nagar, Sohian Road, Sangrur.

 

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

M/s. Shree Ganesh Traders, Patiala Gate, Sangrur.

 

             ….Opposite party

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri R.K. Singla, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY              :     Exparte.                     

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                   K.C.Sharma, Member

                   Sarita Garg, Member

           

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shri Balwinder Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that  the complainant came to know that the OP is running a sale promotion scheme in which the complainant became the member of the scheme vide membership number 196 for LED Samsung 32” 32F 4000 and it was settled between the Op and the complainant that the complainant had to pay 20 instalments of Rs.1550/- each i.e. total Rs.31,000/- between the period from 11.1.2014 to August, 2015. The complainant paid all the instalments regularly.  Further case of the complainant is that the Op intimated the complainant that the supply of LED Samsung 32’ 32F 4000 model has been stopped in the market.  As such, the complainant requested the OP to supply Samsung LED model 32J4300, whose price was Rs.28,281/- on the online, but the OP demanded Rs.3000/- more for supply of the same LED.  It is further averred that the OP even told the complainant that his total deposited amount of Rs.31,000/- in twenty instalments will be considered as total amount of Rs.29,000/- for the said product which was demanded by the complainant and not even there the OP remained stable and demanded Rs.3000/- more from the complainant.  The complainant requested the Op to accede to the request of the complainant, but all in vain despite serving of legal notice dated 19.9.2015.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the Op be directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.31,000/- or to supply Samsung LED Model 32J4300 81 cm and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that the OP did not appear despite service, as such OP was proceeded exparte on 15.12.2015.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-4 copy of brochure, Ex.C-5 copy of online rate list and closed evidence. 

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted case of the complainant that he became the member of the OP and deposited twenty instalments of Rs.1550/- each i.e. total Rs.31,000/- with the OP, but the OP did not supply the agreed Samsung LED 32" 32F 4000 model to the complainant, on the ground that the production of the same has been stopped and the same is not available in the market.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the OP has offered to supply the LED model 32J4300 and has demanded Rs.3000/- in excess from the complainant claiming the price of this LED model as Rs.34,000/-.  But, the complainant has relied upon the document Ex.C-5 i.e. the online best prices of televisions in India, wherein the price of the Samsung 32J4300 LED is shown as Rs.28,281/- after offering 18% off on the original price of Rs.34,000/-.  But, a bare perusal of the document Ex.C-5 did not depict any date to show when this document was generated.  Moreover, this is not an authenticated document nor it is the sale price of the LED issued by the Samsung company.  On this document Ex.C-5, the price of Samsung 32J4300 LED TV is only Rs.34,000/-.  Hence, we feel that there is nothing wrong on the part of the OP in demanding Rs.3000/- more from the complainant, as the OP has already received an amount of Rs.31,000/- from the complainant in instalments.  As such, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OP to deliver the Samsung LED 32J4300 immediately after charging Rs.3000/- from the complainant, as discussed above. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

Pronounced.

 

                February 3, 2016.

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

 

                                                            (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

 

                                                             (Sarita Garg)

                                                                 Member