BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.213 of 2016

Date of Instt.12.05.2016

Date of Decision:19.07.2017

Dr. Ashmeet Singh, ANR Hospital, Jalandhar. ..........Complainant

Versus

M/s Surindera Industries Near Doaba College Chowk, Jalandhar through its authorized signatory.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Ajay Kumar, Adv Counsel for complainant.

Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Adv Counsel for OP.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is running a Hospital under the name and style of ANR Hospital at Jalandhar and he required some electronic equipments to be installed at his premises, so he approached OP in this regard and OP allured complainant to purchase certain equipments. Accordingly the complainant purchased one Attendance machine worth Rs.9500/- and Attendance Card (10 in number) worth Rs.250/-. In this regard, the OP has issued a bill No.2475 dated 07.05.2015 in this regard in favour of the complainant for a total value of Rs.12,144/-, which includes VAT and installation charges.

2. That after the installation of the said equipments, complainant checked the box in which the said equipments were packed and was surprised to see that the said box do not contain the price tag over it. The complainant inquired from other dealers about the actual price of the said equipments and was surprised to know that OP has charged excess amount from complainant wrongly and illegally, with the intention to cheat the complainant. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and negligence on part of the OP. After coming to know the said fact, the complainant approached OP and asked about the same, on which OP instead of apologizing to complainant, started misbehaving with him and thereafter the complainant served a legal notice but no reply has been given by the OP and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to settle the accounts with complainant and to pay interest on the amount excessively charged by it and further direct the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- as damages on account of harassment, agony being suffered by the complainant and also direct to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP and accordingly OP appeared through his counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as no dispute, under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act is made out and even the present complaint is abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act and further averred that the complainant is not a consumer as the equipment has been purchased for running a commercial activity and further alleged that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, vague, delayed and without any cause of action and even the transaction, the subject matter of the complaint is a contractual transaction entered between two parties after quotations of price and negotiations, as such are beyond the preview of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. On merits purchase of the electronic equipments are admitted but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of the OP Ex.OP/A and then closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. First of all, we prefer to take a plea, taken by the OP in written statement that the electronic equipments were purchased by the complainant for using in the hospital and as such it is purchased for commercial activity and therefore, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. But we do not agree with this submission of the learned counsel for the OP because the said electronic equipments are not used for any gain/earning there from and as such the same is not covered under the provision of commercial purpose, if the articles are to be used for the purpose of earning in the hospital then the same must be covered under the provision of commercial purpose. So, accordingly we do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the OP.

8. Apart from above, further as per version of the complainant that he purchased some electronic equipments from the OP vide bill Ex.C1 for an amount of Rs.12,144/- but when the complainant got a quotation in regard to the same article then he came to know that the excess charges was taken by the OP from the complainant and copy of the quotation is placed on the file Ex.C3. Even in support of his version, the complainant also produced on file one document Ex.C4. Apart from that there is only affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA and legal notice Ex.C2. Apart from that there is no document produced on the file. If we take into consideration the invoice Ex.C1 and quotation Ex.C3, then we can say without any hesitation that the invoice is dated 07.05.2015, whereas the quotation obtained by the complainant is dated 25.05.2016, after about twelve months of the purchase of the said article and as per business principle, the prices of the electronic goods like the ones in dispute, on varying from time to time and from make to make and such goods are seeing the trend of decreasing prices due to increase in demand and consequent increase in sale. Apart from that the complainant has not produced on the file the price of the said electronic equipments, displayed by the OP on the Board or in alternative the price is printed on the packing box but box is also not produced. So, with these observations, how we can assess that the excess price was charged by the OP from the complainant. In support of these versions, we like to refer a pronouncement of Hon'ble State Commission, Madhya Pradesh, cited in 1994(2) C.P.J. 66 “Bhargav Auto and Electric Stores Vs. Lajjaram Tiwari”, wherein his Lordship held as under “We are not convinced that the complainant had been successful in proving that the price charged was an excess price. The cartoon on which the price was printed has not been produced before the District Forum. Moreover, to fall within the definition of 'Complainant', it has to be shown that a trader has charged for the goods a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law for the time being in force or has charged price in excess of price displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods”. In this case, the complainant has not brought on the file any evidence to prove that what is the fixed price of the said electronic equipments, if so, then the case of the complainant is well covered by the aforesaid judgment. Apart from that, we further like to refer an other pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2010(1) C.P.J. 135 “PS Kalantri (Dr.)Vs. Wipro G.E. Medical Systems Ltd”, wherein his Lordship held as under “Unfair trade practice, charging of higher price, complainant alleged that similar system has been supplied to another doctor at lesser price after two years, held that this is not a valid ground to prove unfair trade practice, prices of electronic goods are declining all over world with advancement of technology and spurt in demand, allegation of unfair trade practice held not proved”.

9. If we see the case of the complainant in the light of above judgments, then we are of the considered opinion that the complainant could not able to establish the exact and real price of the said electronic equipments, if so then, how he can claim that excess price was charged from him by the OP. So, with these observations, we do not find any substances in the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant and therefore the complaint is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

19.07.2017 Member President