Karnataka

Bidar

CC/46/2015

PASARGI PRAVEEN S/O VEERAPPA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PROP. RAYMOND SHOP BIDAR - Opp.Party(s)

H SURYAKANTH

30 May 2016

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                         C.C.No. 46/2015

 

                                                                                              Date of filing: 24/06/2015

 

                                                                                         Date of disposal : 30/05/2016.

 

 

P R E S E N T:-              (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                         (2) Shri. Shankrappa  (Halipurgi),

                                                                      B.A., LL.B.

                                                                                  Member.

                               

COMPLAINANT:             Pasargi Praveen, s/o Veerappa,

                                      Age 29 years, Occ:Civil Engineer,

                                         R/o H.no.2-755, Allam Prabhu Nagar,

                                      Behind Siddharudh Math, Gumpa,

                                         Mannhalli Road, Bidar-585403.

 

 

                                     (By Sri. H. Suryakanth &

                                      Smt. Padma M., Advocates)

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-             1. Prop. Raymond Shop,

                                             Bagodi Meenakshi Complex,

                                             Udgir Road, Bidar-585401.

 

                                       2. Raymond Limited,

                                           Po. Jekegram, Thane (MS)

                                           Pin 400606.

 

                                          (O.P.No.1 By Shri. Deshpande P.M., Advocate )

                                       (O.P.No.2 Exparte )

                                                                                                                                                 

 

 

 

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

    The complainant is before this Forum, filing a complaint u/s.12 of C.P.Act. against the O.Ps alleging unfair trade practice and act of deceit.  The averments of the complaint are as hereunder:

2.             That the O.P.no.2 herein is manufacturer and the O.P.no.1 is a dealer under him trading Reymond brand clothes/dress materials.

 

3.                The complainant alleges that on 01-06-2015, at about 8.40p.m. intending to purchase a Raymonds Magic Touch pant piece, he stepped into the shop premises of the O.P.no.1.  The sales man therein, detaching a piece of cloth (Magic Touch) to the extent of 1.20 metres sent it to the cash counter for raising the bill.   The complainant has submitted the cloth piece as a whole to this Court, which has been marked as M.O.1 of the case.  The person at the counter prepared a manual bill in the cash memo in from no.939 (Ex.P.1) in spite of the persistence of issuing  a digital bill.  In the said cash memo (Ex.P.1) the purchased Raymonds Magic Touch cloth piece was billed @ Rs. 1,950/- per metre and a total amount of Rs. 2,340/- was billed to the complainant for 1.2 metres of length, the complainant paid the bill amount through corporation Bank/ VISA card (Ex.P.2.).  Later, nourishing a doubt about the bill amount charged, he visited website of the Respondent no.2 via-internet and off loaded the Magic Touch brand cloths maximum recommended retail price list, submitted as Ex.P.3 and found that, the MRP of the cloth in question has been rated @ Rs. 981/- per metre.  Concluding that, the dealer O.P.no.1 has fleeced him almost doubt of the MRP, he is before this Forum for redressal of his grievances.  Later on, to substantiate that, the O.P.no.1 has the provision of issuing digital bills, he got made a decoy purchase on 21-12-2015 and has submitted the concerned bill as Ex.P.4 together with a printed dealers list of the O.P.no.1 as Ex.P.5, where in the O.P.No.1 appears as on authorised dealer of O.P.no.2.

4.           On receipt of notice, O.P.no.1 entered into contest but the O.P.no.2 has evaded the same and has been placed exparte on 03-03-2016.  O.P.no.2 has not chosen to file any version and the defence has been struc off as on 05/01/2016.  O.P.no.1 had filed version on 17/11/2015.

 

5.        After the hearing of the case proceeded up to certain extent, the leaned counsel of O.P.no.1 opted to file evidence affidavit of O.P.no.1 together with a manual book, a cloth piece of Ceremonia brand and a digitally released receipt of the purported transaction on 01-06-2015 with the complainant.  As a procedural compliance and apropos to the evidence affidavit of the O.P.no.1, we marked the cloth piece (Ceremonia) as M.O.2, the printed price list of Raymonds as Ex.R.1 and the digital bill ( of date 01-06-2015) as Ex.R.2 in the case. 

 

6.              Surprisingly, in the versions of the O.P.no.1 filed initially, he has denied that, the complainant was a consumer as provided for u/s. 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act.  The transaction in question was free of charge, complaint barred by limitation,  this Court lacks jurisdiction to try the case (sic) and a barrage of unfounded defences.  Which we discard in toto.   In para 10 of the versions, the O.P.no.1 claims that, the price charged by him from the complainant was proper and appropriate and after satisfying himself about the brand and price the complainant has left the show room.  He further contended that, the present complaint is an afterthought to black mail the O.P. and has prayed to dismiss the case acting u/s.26 of the C.P.Act.

 

7.          We note down the shameless volte face  in his evidence affidavit filed later, claiming that, the complainant had not purchased Magic Touch cloth piece but Ceremonia branded one, akin to M.O.2, which is a Terry wool cloth piece.  His Ex.R.1 is in conformity with Ex.P.3 relied upon by the complainant.  A terrible cliché is but apparent from the digital bill dt. 01/06/2015 submitted by him as Ex.R.2.  The timings of the bill is being seen as 11:25:28 hrs. Of 01-06-2015.  When the transaction took place in the evening how could the bill be generated in the forenoon of the same day?  The canvassing is nothing but a heinous attempt to plant false evidence to escape culpa. 

8.          Both sides (complainant & O.P.no.1) have filed their evidence affidavits together with documents and material objects as discussed supra as further recorded at the end of this order.  Both sides also have filed their written arguments and were heard through their respective learned counsels, in length.  Additionally, the complainant’s side, going a further step ahead, has submitted a literature of unknown origin defining the M.R.P. and Consumers entitlements.  The learned counsel of the complainant has further relied upon two decisions such as :-

                  a)  II (2007) CPJ 96 ( Delhi State Commission)

                       Zaika Bazar v/s Hemanth Goel

 

                    b) III ( 2007 CPJ 305 ( NC)

                       Cargo Tarpaulin Industries v/s Mallikarjuna B koiri.

 

 

 In both the above Judgements the higher Courts have decried the malpraxis of the traders charging higher price above the M.R.P. and the Hon’ble Delhi State Commission has further endorsed imposition of punitive damages due to unfair trade practices resorted to by the respective traders of the judgement as defined u/s. 2(1) (r) of the C.P.Act.

9.              Considering the rival stands taken by the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Does the complainant prove that, the O.P.s have resorted to unfair trade practices against him?

 

2.  Does the O.P.no.1 prove that, he is innocent and has traded with the complainant honestly, diligently and truth fully? 

 

3. What orders?

 

10.           Our findings to the above points are as under:

 

 

1. In the Affirmative.
2. In the negative.
3. As per the final order for the following:

 

 

                                                :: R E A S O N S : :

 

11.          The points no. 1 &  2  being correlated, we chose to answer them together.  As discussed earlier, the complainant vide the averments of his complainant, fortified with the documents produced  as Ex.P.1, 2 & 3 and the corroborations vide evidence affidavit and written argument has successfully demonstrated before this Court that, factually he had purchased a pant piece of  “MAGIC TOUCH “variant on 01/06/2015 during evening, MRP of which has been specified as Rs. 981/- per metre as is evident in Ex.P.3 and Ex.R.2.  The cloth piece has been received in evidence as M.O.1.  The price should have been Rs. 1,177.20 ps, if the trade was done fairly.  Instead, the O.P.No.1, has deceitfully collected a sum of Rs. 2,340/- vide Ex.P.1 from him i.e. Rs. 1,163.20 over and above the M.R.P.  He has also further successfully demonstrated that, even though the O.P.no.1 routinely raises digital bills (decoy as Ex.P.4) to camouflage the act of deceit and cheating, he was issued a manual bill, payment of which was made by him through corporation Bank VISA/Debit card vide Ex.P.2.  It is seen from Ex.P.2 that, the sum of s. 2,340/- was realised at 21.10.54 hours of 01-06-2015 in confirmity with the claims of the complainant.

 

12.             Per contra, the subsequently modified claim of the O.P.no.1 that, the complainant had purchased 1.2 metre lengths of pant piece of “Ceremonia”variety (M.O.2) appears to be ridiculous per se.  We had a closure scrutiny of the M.O.2.  It is cloth of piece Terrywodlen fabrics.    Which rational man, sane man, at Bidar,  where the atmospheric temperature reigns at 43 degree Celsius in the month of June would opt wear  pant of Terrywool cloth? Further, the document, so called digital bill of the transaction between the parties at Ex.R.2 we observe, was generated at 11;25:28 hours of 01-06-2015, i.e. almost ten hours before the transaction between the parties.  The O.P.no.1 is trying to mislead this Court by planting false evidence unrelated to the case, which is deplorable per se and hence we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and point no.2 in the negative.  Accordingly we pass the following:

 

: :   ORDER : :

 

              For the reasons discussed above, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 is hereby allowed in part with costs against O.Ps.

 

              (a)  The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to refund a sum of Rs. 1,163.20 ps to the complainant together with interest @ 18% p.a. calculated from 01-06-2015 till the date of realisation.

 

               (b)   The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

 

              (c)    We are not aware, as to how many gullible consumers have been cheated by the O.P.no.1, adopting similar deceitful tactics.  The fact remains, the O.P.no.2 is vicariously liable for the deceits of the O.P.no.1.  The O.P.no.1 is operating from a District Head-quarter at a prominent place and thousands of consumers might have been victims of his misdeeds. 

 

             (d)    The  M.Os subject to the result of the appeal that may be filed be returned to the respective parties.

 

             (e)   Before parting with the case, we put on record that had we the power, we would have initiated prosecution of the O.P.no.1 for offence  u/s. 420 of the I.P.C. for his act of cheating and deceit.

 

 

                 Four weeks time is granted to fulfil this order.

 

              Office is directed to provide free copies to the litigants and a copy of this order be referred to the Asst.Director, Vartha mathu Prachara Ilakhe, near Rly. Station, Bidar for wide publicity in all the news papers circulated in the H.K. region and electronic media  to ensure consumer awareness

 

 

 

   ( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this  30^th  day of May-2016 )

 

 

                        Sd/-                                                                                                      Sd/-

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                                                                   Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                

           Member                                                                                                    President

 

Documents & material objects submitted by parties

 

complainant

                                                                                                                              

1.Ex.P.1- Cash memo dt. 01-06-2015

2.Ex.P.2- Bank statement of H.D.F.C. Bank.

3.Ex.P.3- Electronically  obtained price list.

4. Ex.P.4- Decoy Bill (digital) of O.P.no.1, dt.21-12-2015.

5. Ex.P.5- Printed list of authorised dealers of O.P.no.2.

6. M.O.No.1-Cloth piece of Raymonds Magic Touch brand.

 

Opponent/s.

 

1. M.O.2- Sample cloth piece of Ceremonia( Terrywool) variety.
2. Ex.P.1- Retail pirce list of  Raymonds cloths (akin to Ex.P.2 )
3. Ex.P.2- Digitally generated bill of claimed transaction between the parties.

 

                               Sd/-                                                                               Sd/-

                     Sri. Shankrappa H.                                               Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                

                        Member                                                                         President