IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 41/2010 (Filed on 08.03.2010) Between: Pappachen Abraham (Ex-service), Parampil House, Ezhamkulam, Parakode P.O., Pin – 691 554. (By Adv. K. Sreekumar) .... Complainant. And: 1. Proprietor, M/s. Panuvelil Glass House, M.C. Road, Adoor. (By Adv. A.C. Eappen) 2. The Branch Manager, M/s. Century Ply, Alukalathil Buildings, Ground Floor, Marottichuvadu, Edappally P.O., Kochi. .... Opposite parties. ORDER Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case is that he had purchased one piece of marine plywood 9 mm 8x4 size from the first opposite party on 10.09.2009 and 2 pieces of the same size on 22.09.2009. The prices of the plywood in the 2 bills are different and maximum retail price was not seen on the plywood. So he enquired about the price of the plywood from other dealers of the locality and found that the price charged by the first opposite party has great difference. Kaduvunkal Glass House is a sub-dealer of the first opposite party and it is situated very near to the first opposite party and they are charging ` 1,440 only for the same plywood. The price difference is ` 476 i.e. the first opposite party collected an amount of ` 476 more from the complainant. The said price difference is brought to the notice of the first opposite party, then the first opposite party informed the complainant that they will do the needful after verifying their accounts. Thereafter, the complainant approached several time for getting the excess amount collected by the first opposite party. But they have not returned the excess price and at last they told that they have closed their accounts. Thereafter, the complainant sent a registered letter on 03.10.2009 to the second opposite party about this matter. But they have also done nothing in this regard even though they have informed that the price collected by the first opposite party is high. The above said acts of the opposite parties are deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint for the realisation of ` 26,307 under various heads along with its interest. 3. The first opposite party filed their version with the following contentions: They admitted that on 10.09.2009 they had sold 2 plywood sheets for ` 3,292. But they are not sure whether the complainant was the purchaser or not as the name of the purchaser is not seen in the bill produced by the complainant. As per invoice No.1536 dated 22.09.2009, the said purchase was made by one Binu Yoyannan, Parampil House, Parakode and he is not the complainant herein. The said purchase was made at 7-30 p.m. and by mistake he was billed for 12 mm plywood instead of 9 mm. The next day the said mistake was noticed by the accountant and the excess amount was entrusted to the auto driver, who had transported the plywood for the said Binu, for returning it to the said Binu. The said auto driver paid the said amount to Abee Traders for giving it to the purchaser Binu. At the same time on the next day, the father of the purchaser Mr. Yohannan came to the shop of the 1st opposite party and demanded the excess amount. Accordingly, an amount of ` 927 was returned to Mr. Yohannan. The comparison of the price of the plywood mentioned by the complainant in his complaint is baseless. The price of the plywood depends on the variations in the raw material. The 1st opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice to the complainant and the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. The complainant never approached the 1st opposite party in this regard. With the above contentions, the 1st opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. The 2nd opposite party is exparte. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not? 6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Exts.A1 and A2 and the proof affidavit of the 1st opposite party and one witness for the 1st opposite party. After closure of the evidence, both sides were heard. 7. The Point:- The complainant’s case is that the 1st opposite party had collected excess price from the complainant in connection with the sale of plywood by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit narrating his case along with two documents. The documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the retail invoice No.1413 dated 10.9.09 for ` 3,292 issued by the 1st opposite party. Ext.A2 is the retail invoice No.1536 dated 22.9.09 for ` 3,832 issued by the 1st opposite party. 8. The contentions of the 1st opposite party is that the complainant had not purchased any materials from the 1st opposite party as alleged by the complainant. But the complainant’s son purchased plywood from the 1st opposite party’s shop. At the time of purchase, the 1st opposite party had collected some excess amount from the said purchaser by mistake and later the said mistake was realized and the excess amount collected was returned to the purchaser’s father. The complainant never approached the 1st opposite party raising any objection regarding any excess price collected as alleged in the complaint. 9. In order to prove the opposite parties’ case, the 1st opposite party and one witness for the 1st opposite party filed proof affidavits. 10. On the basis of the contentions of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. The complainant’s allegation is that the 1st opposite party had collected excess price for the plywood purchased by him. But the complainant failed to substantiate this allegation with independent evidence. Exts.A1 and A2 invoices are also not sufficient for proving the complainant’s allegations. As it does not reveals anything to show that the 1st opposite party had collected excess price for the plywood. Thus the complainant had failed to prove his case against the opposite parties. In the circumstances, we cannot find any deficiency or unfair trade practice against the 1st opposite party. Therefore this complaint is not allowable and is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of December, 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Retail Invoice No.1413 dated 10.9.09 for ` 3,292 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. A2 : Retail Invoice No.1536 dated 22.9.09 for ` 3,832 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Pappachen Abraham (Ex-service), Parampil House, Ezhamkulam, Parakode P.O., Pin – 691 554. (2) Proprietor, M/s. Panuvelil Glass House, M.C. Road, Adoor. (3) The Branch Manager, M/s. Century Ply, Alukalathil Buildings, Ground Floor, Marottichuvadu, Edappally P.O., Kochi. (4) The Stock File. | 
