Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/285/2018

Asian Paints Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mukesh Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Ashim Aggarwal Adv.

31 Dec 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	285 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	03.10.2018
Date of Decision	:	31.12.2018

 

Asian Paints Ltd. through its authorized representative Mr. Srivastav, 6-A, Shanti Nagar, Santa Cruz (East), Mumbai – 400 055.

…….Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

Versus

 

1.  Mukesh Kumar s/o Sh. Om Parkash Yadav, R/o H.No.153, Police Station, East, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

 

                                                    ...Respondent/Complainant.

 

2.  M/s Modi Paints & Chemicals, SCO No.10, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh through its proprietor.

 

...Proforma Respondent/Opposite Party No.1.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1/complainant alongwith respondent no.1/complainant in person.

 

Appeal No.	:	286 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	03.10.2018
Date of Decision	:	31.12.2018

 

M/s Modi Paints & Chemicals, SCO No.10, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh through its proprietor Sh. Lalit Kumar.

 

…….Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

Versus

 

1.  Mukesh Kumar s/o Sh. Om Parkash Yadav, R/o H.No.153, Police Station, East, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

 

                                                    ...Respondent/Complainant.

 

2.  Asian Paints Ltd. through its authorized representative, 6-A, Shanti Nagar, Santa Cruz (East), Mumbai – 400 055.

 

...Proforma Respondent/Opposite Party No.2.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1/complainant alongwith respondent no.1/complainant in person.

 

 

Appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against   order dated 24.08.2018 passed by District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh   in Consumer Complaint No.757 of 2017.

 

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                   Vide this common order we propose to dispose of aforesaid two appeals bearing Nos.285 of 2018 filed by Opposite Party No.2 and 286 of 2018 filed by Opposite Party No.1 against order dated 24.08.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, complaint bearing No.757 of 2017 filed by the respondent No.1/complainant was partly allowed in the following manner:-

“9.                    In view of the above, the complaint deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed against Opposite Parties and they are directed as under:-

                                             i.        To refund the extra charged amount of Rs.21/- to the complainant.

                                           ii.        To pay Rs.7,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant and also for deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice.

                                          iii.         To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.

 10.        The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [i] & [ii] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.3,000/-.”  

2.              Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant that on 08.08.2017, he purchased three containers of ACE AC-16G One Litre Exterior Emulsion, for which, Opposite Party No.1 charged him Rs.540/- vide bill Annexure C-1. It was further stated that on reaching home, the complainant found that the MRP (including of all taxes) of each container was Rs.173/- only, therefore, the total bill could not exceed Rs.173 x 3 = Rs.519/-. It was further stated that the complainant immediately approached Opposite Party No.1 to refund the excess amount of Rs.21/- charged from him, but to no avail. Hence, a consumer complaint was filed before the Forum. 

3.             Opposite Party No.1, in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that there was no deviation from MRP mentioned on the paint containers and none of the Opposite Parties were at fault. It was further stated that rather, the complainant was charged less than the MRP. It was further stated that the MRP mentioned on the paint container “ACE AC16G” was for the base paint only and it was clearly stated just below the MRP on the container “Only for Base Paint, add colorants. Colorants cost extra. 1 Ltr. nett after tinting”. It was further stated that when a specific shade was requested by the Customer, in this case, Shade Code 427 Shade Name TERRACOTTA mentioned on the bill dated 08.08.2017, the desired shade was prepared by adding colorant to the base paint in the specific ratio. It was further stated that for preparing the shade TERRACOTTA as requested by the Complainant, the answering Opposite Party had to add colorant to the base paint. It was further stated that cost of the colorant for preparing 3 Ltrs. of the shade TERRACOTTA was Rs.72/- (including GST). It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1 nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             Opposite Party No.2, in its reply, took almost similar pleas as taken by Opposite Party No.1 in its reply and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             The complainant filed separate replications wherein he reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2.

6.             The parties led evidence in support of their case.

7.             After going through the evidence on record and submissions of Counsel for the parties, the Forum partly allowed the complaint, as referred to above.

8.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeals, have been filed by Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2.

9.                          We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.

10.           Appellant/opposite party No.1, in its appeal bearing No.286 of 2018 has stated that the Forum did not appreciate the invoice dated 08.08.2017 produced by respondent No.1/complainant, which clearly mentioned shade Code 0427, which corresponds to Terracotta shade.  It was further stated that the desired shade (Terracotta) is prepared by adding colorant to the base paint in specific ratio. Thus, for preparing the shade “Terracotta” as requested by respondent No.1/complainant, the appellant/opposite party No.1 had to add colorant to the base paint. The cost of the colorant for preparing 3 Litres of the shade “Terracotta” was Rs.72/- (including GST), hence, the price of base paint + colorant together was Rs.591.24 whereas respondent No.1/complainant was given discount of Rs.51/- and not charged excess as wrongly alleged.

11.           Appellant/Opposite Party No.2, in its appeal bearing No.285 of 2018 took almost identical grounds to lay challenge to the impugned order.

12.           Lastly, it was prayed that the appeals be allowed and the impugned order passed by the Forum be set aside.

13.           On the contrary, Counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant, while refuting the arguments raised by the Counsel for the appellants, argued that the appellants indulged into unfair trade practice by charging him over and above the MRP of the paint can. It was further argued that the Forum rightly allowed the complaint and directed the appellants/opposite parties to refund the extra amount charged from respondent No.1/complainant besides directing them to pay compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and cost of litigation. It was prayed that both the appeals be dismissed and the impugned order passed by the Forum be upheld.

14.           To our mind, the Forum rightly came to the conclusion that the appellants charged in excess from respondent No.1/complainant towards the price of the paint cans, in question. We have perused the invoice dated 08.08.2017 (Annexure C-1), whereby, respondent No.1/complainant     charged an amount of Rs.540/- qua purchase of three cans of ACE AC-16G 1LTR. We have also seen the photographs (Annexure C-2) of those cans. Original paint can was also produced before us in Court at the time of arguments by respondent No.1/complainant. Clearly, the price shown on the paint can was Rs.173/-, which was inclusive of all taxes. Below the price, a note to the following effect was mentioned:-

“Only for Base Paint, add colorants. Colorants cost extra. 1 Ltr. nett after tinting”

15.           From the reading of above note, it is crystal clear that the price of the paint cans, purchased by respondent No.1/complainant, was Rs.173/- each and that too, inclusive of all taxes. In case of adding colorant to it, extra cost was to be charged over and above Rs.173. Reading of invoice (Annexure C-1) shows that the appellants charged Rs.140.63 per paint can i.e. below the MRP of Rs.173/- and, thus, for three paint cans, the amount was shown as Rs.421.89. Thereafter, the appellants charged CGST of Rs.59.06 & UT GST of Rs.59.06, totaling Rs.118.12, on the aforesaid amount of Rs.421.89 and accordingly, the billed amount came to Rs.540/-. Nowhere the paint can reflect the price of the colorant. Rather, the colorant was to be charged extra. It is totally an unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants i.e. firstly pricing below the MRP shown and then charging UGST & UT GST on the same. As alleged by the complainant, no colorant was added, since he was given sealed cans. If colorant were added, seals would not have been there. Had the appellants charged the actual MRP of Rs.173/-, which was inclusive of all taxes, reflected on the pain can, the billed amount for three paint cans would be Rs.519/-. Thus, the appellants charged respondent No.1/complainant an excess amount of Rs.21/-. This practice should be stopped immediately. The shopkeepers who are adopting such a practice are befooling the customers. In our opinion, the Forum rightly held in Para 8 as under:-

“Perusal of Invoice dated 08.08.2017 (Annexure C-1 at Pg. 6 of the paper-book) nowhere reveals that the Complainant ever demanded any additional colourant to be added in original Base Paint or the same was ever delivered to him. More so, as per the case of the Complainant, he was sold sealed box of Exterior Emulsion and no shade was added to that. In any case, if any, additional colourant would have been sold to the Complainant, then it must have been mentioned over the Invoice (Annexure C-1). But in absence of any such mention of additional charges, the act of Opposite Party No.1 for charging more than the MRP and of course, the act of Opposite Party No.2 to corroborate the defence taken by Opposite Party No.1, clearly reveals that they are deficient in rendering proper services to the Complainant and are guilty of unfair trade practice.”

 

16.           In our opinion, the Forum rightly allowed the complaint, by directing the appellants/opposite parties to refund the extra amount of Rs.21/- charged from respondent No.1/complainant. It also rightly awarded an amount of Rs.7,000/- towards mental agony and physical harassment caused to respondent No.1/complainant and also for deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice.

17.           No other point was urged by the Counsel for the parties.

18.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.

19.           For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals bearing Nos.285 of 2018 and 286 of 2018, being devoid of any merit, are dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is upheld.

20.           Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

21.           File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

31.12.2018.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad