| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 139 of 24.4.2017 Decided on: 8.2.2023 Alankar Arora Advocate, Chamber No.407, 3rd Floor, Yadwindra Complex, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Mswipe Technologies Pvt. Ltd.Astral Center,9th Floor, N.M.Joshi Marg, Byculla, Mumbai-11.
- Rakesh Kumar Area Sales Officer, Mswipe Technologies Pvt. Ltd. UG-7, Shivlok House-II, Karampura, Oppositte Milan Cinema, New Delhi-110015.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act QUORUM Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member PRESENT: Sh.Alankar Arora,Advocate, complainant in person. Sh.S.S.Ghuman, counsel for OPs. ORDER - The instant complaint is filed by Alankar Arora, Advocate (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Mswipe Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
- The averments of the complainant are as follows:
The complainant purchased a wisepad G2 card swipe device from the OPs and paid Rs.6700/- on 27.1.2017 vide bank transaction Rs.6000/- and Rs.700/-cash in hand at Patiala. The complainant demanded bill for the same from the OPs but they did not do so stating that the same will be provided at the time of delivery. On 9.2.2017 wisepad G2 card swipe device was delivered at the office of complainant without providing bill. The MRP mentioned on the device is Rs.4399/- but the OP charged Rs.6700/-, thereby having charged Rs.2301/- in excess from the complainant. The complainant time and again requested OPs for providing the bill of wisepad G2 card swipe device. The complainant also sent legal notice dated 17.3.2017 upon the OPs but of no avail. There is, thus, not only deficiency in service on the part of the OPs but they also committed unfair trade practice by charging excess amount, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of the complaint. - Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement. It is denied that the complainant purchased wisepad G2 card swipe device on cash payment from the OPs rather the same has been taken by the complainant on monthly rent basis as per Clause No.4 of the application form as Monthly Supported Service Fee of Rs.350 for 12 months. No excess amount has been charged from the complainant. There is, thus, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- To prove his case, complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his affidavit, Ex.C1 legal notice, Ex.C2 copy of postal receipts, Exs.C3 application form, Ex.C4 visiting card, Ex.C5 warranty card including address of OP, Ex.C6 receipt of Rs.6000/-, Ex.C7 confirmation receipt, Ex.C8 SMS receipt of receiving Rs.6700/-, Ex.C9 copy of MRP mentioned on device cover, Ex.C10 copy of pass book of complainant and closed the evidence.
- In rebuttal the ld. counsel for OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Rakesh Kumar, Exs.OP1 to OP5 documents and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The complainant has alleged that he had purchased a swipe machine from the OPs and had made a payment of Rs.6700/- as per receipt,Ex.C8, out of which Rs.6000/-was paid through on-line transaction and Rs.700/- was paid in cash. However, no invoice/bill for the same was issued by the OPs. The complainant had further alleged that the MRP of the said devise is Rs.4399/- as per Ex.C9 and as such the OPs have resorted to unfair trade practice.
- However, the OPs during arguments have submitted that the swipe machine was never sold to the complainant and in fact the same was given on monthly rental of Rs.350/- for 12 months , as per document Ex.OP1.The OPs have placed on record sale vouchers Exs.OP2 to OP5, as per which Rs.4900/- have been charged as rental and Rs.1700/- as installation charges of the said machine with Rs.100/- as taxes.
- Even, if this argument of the OPs is taken at its face value that the machine was never sold and was given on rental basis, the OPs have charged (Rs.700/- + Rs.4200/-) vide Exs.OP2 and OP3 totaling Rs.4900/- as rentals as per their sale vouchers against the rental of Rs.4200/-.The OPs have also charged Rs.1700/- as installation charges (Ex.OP4) which in our opinion is excessive as no installation is required for the operation of the machine and it is ready to use immediately when it is powered up. OPs have also charged Rs.100/- as SIM rental fee which is Ex.OP5 and as such a total amount of Rs.6700/- has been received by the OP for the said machine. Furthermore, the MRP of the machine is Rs.4399/- and the OPs would have advised the complainant accordingly to procure the machine on outright basis and not on rental as in case of outright basis the machine would have been the property of the complainant and would have been cost him much less.
- As such we are of the opinion that unfair trade practice has been adopted by the OPs while handing over the swipe machine to the complainant against sale/rental and have charged excess of the required rentals/maximum retail price.
- In view of the discussion above, we are of the opinion that the swipe machine was sold to the complainant for Rs.6700/- against MRP of Rs.4399/-.As such we direct the OPs to refund the excess amount charged from the complainant to the tune of Rs.2301/- and also to pay Rs.2000/-as compensation for causing mental agony harassment to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within 30 days from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order.
- The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
-
-
G.S.Nagi S.K.AGGARWAL Member President | |
