By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President<br /> <br /> The case of complainant is that the complainant had purchased a gate on 28/8/06 from the respondent’s furniture shop. The cast iron grill required for the gate was selected by both the parties. The cost of this was Rs.5,840/- and was given to the respondent at the time of supply. The iron bars for the frame of the gate required 96.200 kg. were purchased by the respondent and it was not convinced to the complainant. The market price of the iron bar is now Rs.28/- only and the statement regarding the cost of Rs.30/- is not correct. The construction of the gate required only three labourers. The cast iron rode required only 18 Nos. and the price for each is Rs.10/-. The current charge and depreciation will come about Rs.100/-. So Rs.2539/- was charged as excess. Petitioner has also purchased a door from the respondent and the material was provided by the complainant. That amount of Rs.330/- was adjusted in the bill. The weight of the four materials which are carved was not reduced from the total weight. An excess amount of Rs.2539/- was received by the respondent from the petitioner . For the notice of the petitioner, reply was sent through lawyer. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. The counter in brief is as follows: All the averments are denied. There was no <br /> unfairness in the weight of iron rodes. No excess amount was received from the petitioner. The charges imposed were below the charges fixed by the Association of Automobile Workshop Kerala. The complainant has no complaint regarding the quality and the mode of work. The work of gate can be done by only the expert labourers. Hence the labourers have the right to fix their charge. The charge received was not excess. The averments in the reply notice are true. Only after two months of purchase defects are alleged. Complainant is not entitled for any relief. Hence dismiss.<br /> <br /> 3. The points for consideration are<br /> 1) Is there unfair trade practice committed by the respondent ?<br /> 2) If so reliefs and costs ?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P3 and Exhibit R1.<br /> <br /> 5. Points : According to the petitioner an amount of Rs.2539.60/- has received in excess by the respondent. The details are shown in the complaint itself. The rate of labour charge and the cost of iron rode, electricity charges etc. are mentioned in the complaint. He simply stated all these datas are without any basis. The source of information is not stated. Simply alleging such and such things cost such and such amount. This data cannot be reliable. He and the respondent together selected from another shop the required cast iron grills. At the time of supply only he knew the price. This version can not be accepted. At the time of selection he is supposed to know the price. Nobody will select a thing without knowing the price. If the amount given by him to the respondent was more than the amount agreed at the time of selection his version can be accepted. Here there is no such case to the petitioner. There is also no evidence to accept the stand of the complainant regarding the price of cast iron rode. The charge of the labourers how can fixed by him. There is also no basis to this. As per Exhibit R1 for this kind of work charges are imposed per square feet. One square feet work costs Rs.110/-. Here both the parties did not state the area. So this can be relied only for the purpose of basis of charge for this kind of work. Complainant simply stated some datas without any basis. He failed to establish the unfair practice committed by the respondent.<br /> <br /> 6. In the result the complaint is dismissed and no order as to cost and compensation.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced <br /> in the open Forum this the 21st day of August 2008. <br />