| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 97 of 2015 Date of Institution: 19-02-2015 Date of Decision: 18-08-2015 S.Kuldip Singh Ragi son of Shri Ram Singh, resident of House No. 1906/14, Gali Masjid Wali, Chowk Manna Singh, Amritsar. Complainant Versus M/s.Bhagwati Agencies, Near Krishna Cinema, Gilwali Gate, Amritsar through its partner/ proprietor. Opposite Party Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date. Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Randhir Sharma, Advocate. For the Opposite Party: Sh.Ajay Puri, Advocate. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Kuldip Singh Ragi under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that the complainant, to purchase a LED 42” TV of Samsung Company went to the showroom of Opposite Party and asked the Opposite Party to show LED 42” of Samsung Company, but at that time, the 42” TV was not available, as such, the Opposite Party told the complainant that presently 40” LED TV was available in the show room which was having the same features and he was also asked to check the features of 40” TV, select the same and if the complainant wanted only 42” TV then the same will be made available and delivered to his house and in this respect, Opposite Party had given assurance and commitment to the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.48,000/- to the Opposite Party being the price of 42” LED TV, against retail invoice No. R1935 dated 27.1.2015 issued in his favour. Said Invoice was however, not issued to the complainant on the spot on payment of said amount and rather, it was supplied to him at his house at the time of delivery of the TV through the delivery man. Complainant alleges that to the utter surprise of the complainant when he opened the TV and read the contents of the invoice, he found that 40” LED TV was supplied to him, whereas the Opposite Party had made undertaking and assurance that 42” LED TV will be delivered at his house since the Opposite Party had received the price for 42” TV. At that very moment, on the spot, the complainant requested to the delivery man to take back 40” TV and he will not accept the same because it was not as per the order placed by him, but the delivery man refused to take back the same and went away. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Party and requested to take back the 40” TV as the complainant had made the payment of 42” TV, but the Opposite Party flatly refused to take back the same on false and frivolous excuses. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the Opposite Party has charged the excess amount from the complainant which is evident from the quotations received by the complainant from M/s.Anand Brothers, Chowk Farid, Amritsar dated 31.1.2015 and M/s.Rythm Electro World, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar dated 5.2.2015 and these quotations show that the Opposite Party has charged excess amount from the complainant for the same product. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to either supply 42” LED TV of the said company or to take back the said 40” TV from the house of the complainant and to refund the entire amount of Rs.48,000/- to him alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and filed the present complaint on false allegations and concocted story. In fact, there is no Sam-LED of 42” marketed by the company in the market. The complainant had purchased SAM LED 40” TV from the Opposite Party vide invoice No.R-1935 dated 27.1.2015 and Opposite Party had charged Rs.48,000/- as per rates fixed by the company for retailers and with this LED Set-Two gifts i.e. Artico Set containing Hair Dryer, Hair Spray and Hair Colour worth Rs.3300/- and one electric Press were given to the complainant at the time of delivery of the LED TV at the shop of Opposite Party, but this fact has been concealed by the complainant from this Forum. On merits, it was averred that in fact the Samsung Company has marketed LED of 40” only and there is no LED of said company of 42” in the market. It is denied that the complainant had made payment for 42” TV. The invoice in question clearly shows that LED TV of 40” was sold to the complainant and LED TV of 40” was delivered to the complainant on the shop of the Opposite Party. After making payment, the complainant received the invoice and took the delivery of the article purchased alongwith free gifts after his full satisfaction. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Jatinder Arora Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant approached Opposite Party and purchased Samsung LED TV vide invoice Ex.C2 for a sum of Rs.48,000/-. The complainant submitted that he placed an order for the purchase of LED 42” TV of Samsung Company, but the Opposite Party sent 40” LED TV of Samsung Company. The complainant approached and requested to take back 40” LED TV as he had ordered and made payment of 42” LED TV. The complainant further submitted that invoice Ex.C2 was not issued to the complainant at the time of payment, but it was sent alongwith TV at the residence of the complainant. The complainant has also produced on record quotations Ex.C3 and Ex.C4. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Party is that in fact, there is no Sam-LED of 42” marketed by the company in the market. The complainant had purchased SAM LED 40” TV from the Opposite Party vide invoice No.R-1935 dated 27.1.2015 Ex.C2 which was duly issued by the Opposite Party to the complainant at his shop on receipt of payment of Rs.48,000/- as per the rate fixed by the company. Not only this, alongwith this TV set-Two gifts i.e. Artico Set containing Hair Dryer, Hair Spray and Hair Colour worth Rs.3300/- and one electric Press were given to the complainant at the time of delivery of the LED at the shop of Opposite Party, but this fact has been concealed by the complainant from this Forum. Opposite Party has categorically stated that there is no LED of said company of 42” in the market. In this regard, Opposite Party has produced on record the broacher stating that 40” TV is available and being marketed by Opposite Party. The complainant purchased 40” TV from the Opposite Party as is evident from the Invoice Ex.C2 which was issued to the complainant at the spot. Not only this, the complainant has also produced on record the quotations of 40” TV i.e. LED which are Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 which also proves that the complainant was desirous to purchase 40” LED TV. The Opposite Party has supplied the TV to the complainant as per his request and as per Invoice Ex.C2. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the Opposite Party supplied SAM LED 40” TV make UA40H4200 ARLXL to the complainant as per Invoice Ex.C2 for a sum of Rs.48,000/-. Complainant has alleged that he ordered for the supply of SAM LED 42” TV, but the Opposite Party has supplied SAM LED 40” TV. The complainant has failed to prove on record this averment/ allegation as he could not produce any evidence that he ordered for the supply of SAM LED 42” TV, particularly when the Opposite Party has categorically stated in their written version as well as in evidence i.e. statement of Sh.Jatinder Arora, Proprietor of Opposite Party firm through his affidavit Ex.OP1 that there is no LED TV of Samsung Company of 42” in the market. Moreover, this Forum has to see whether the complainant has been supplied the same article which is mentioned in the invoice because it is the duty of the buyer also to see that the supply of the product is as per the invoice. Opposite Party has supplied the SAM LED 40” TV to the complainant as per the invoice Ex.C2. The intention of the complainant was also clear from the quotations he has placed on record Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 that the complainant wants to purchase LED TV of 40” and not LED TV of 42” because these quotations are also of 40” LED TV and not of 42” LED TV. Opposite Party has categorically stated that there is no 42” LED TV of Samsung Company nor the same is marketed by Samsung Company. The complainant has also failed to produce on record any evidence to prove that there is 42” LED TV of Samsung Company which is being marketed by the said company. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove on record his averments of the complaint.
- Resultantly, we hold that the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 18-08-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
