Haryana

Gurgaon

cc/188/2014

Lt.Col.(Retd.) Rajeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Print Venue - Opp.Party(s)

02 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                  DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001

                                                                                                         Consumer Complaint No: 188 of 2014                                                                                                                     Date of Institution: 11.06.2014                                                                                                                                               Date of Decision:  02.06.2016                   

Lt.Col.(Retd.) Rajeev Kumar, 222, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon-122015.

                                                                                                ….Complainant.

                                                Versus

Print Venue, Plot No.29, 1st Floor, Udyog Vihar, Phase I, Gurgaon through its Managing Director or Authorized Representative.

..Opposite party

                                                                                               

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                 

 

BEFORE:     SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT

SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

                  

Present:        Complainant in person

                    Shri Vishal Saran, Adv for the OP.

 

 

ORDER       SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that  OP-1 seller was offering  on its website engraved pen-Parker Frontier of Rs.599/- at the price of Rs.499/- and upon further enquiry in case of bulk the same was reduced to Rs.449/- for purchase of 10 or more pens. OP made offer a price of Rs.440/- per pen for 50 pens and the complainant placed an order by making online payment of Rs.22,000/- on 10.12.2013. The package was having printed MRP of Rs.400/- and as such the OP has charged more than the MRP of Rs.400/- at Rs.440/- and even on the website price was given as Rs.599/- against the price of Rs.400/-. On the aforesaid reason the complainant prayed for refund of the over charged amount to the extent of Rs.2000/- besides compensation and litigation expenses. The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit and documents Ex.1 to Ex.6.

2                 OP in its written reply has admitted that the goods were delivered to the buyer at Gurgaon. The price of a particular good may differ from day-to-day based upon the marketing/discounting strategy of the company as well as the demand and supply of the product in the market and the company sells the goods at the price as agreed on the date of order and the cost of the goods comprises of the customization charges and thus, pen MRP of which was Rs.400/- as on Dec, 2013 and which was manufactured in Dec, 2013 have been charged at the price of Rs.599/- which  in turn was inclusive of the product charges as well as the customization chares as per terms mentioned in Annexure B. The OP has denied misleading advertisements and over charging amount as alleged. The complainant purchased the engraved parker pens and not the original Parker pens and therefore, the complainant was liable to pay additional charges on account of engraving of the original parker pens. In  case of customized pens the company has charged for engraving as well as shipping and as such the price has been charged as per agreed rate and there was no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

3                 We have heard both the parties and have perused the record available on file.

4                 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it emerges that the complainant placed an order of 50 pens “Engraved Pen-Parker Frontier” at the rate of Rs.440/- with the OP and the OP has delivered the goods at Gurgaon. The complainant has alleged that when he  opened the packet then he found that the MRP on the packet was Rs.400/- and thus, the OP has charged extra payment  of Rs.2000/- from the complainant.

5                  On the other hand, the contention of the OP is that they have rightly charged the amount from the complainant as per terms and conditions (Ann-B). He has contended that in case of customized items the OP has charged for engraving and shipping  and thus ,there was no deficiency in service. In support of his contention he has relied upon The Federation of Hotels & Restaurants Vs Union of India in WP(C) 6517/03 & WP (C) No.14691-16927/05 decided on 05.03.2007 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.

6                 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the case law referred above, we are not inclined to hold that there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Thus, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

 

Announced                                                                                                                  (Subhash Goyal)

02.06.2016                                                                                                                               President,

                                                                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                             Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

 

(Jyoti Siwach)       

Member