Haryana

Panchkula

CC/331/2020

VED PARKASH GOEL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.K GUPTA & BROTHERS(REGD) - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON.

03 May 2023

ORDER

EFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	331 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	30.10.2020
Date of Decision	:	03.05.2023

 

 

Ved Parkash Goel son of Sh. Kunj Bihari Lal Resident of 1017, Sector-12A, Panchkula.

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

 

Versus

1.     R.K. Gupta & Brothers(Regd.)SCF No.73-A,  Grain  Market, Sector-26, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

2.     Additional Director Food and Supplies & Consumer Affairs and Legal Metrology, U.T.Chandigarh.

….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member

Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member

 

       

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.

                        Sh.Vaneet Mittal,  Advocate for OP No.1.

                        Notice not issued to OP No.2.

                       

                                                ORDER 

(Satpal, President)

1.             Briefly stated, the facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that a weighing machine, bearing the ISO 9002 certification, was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 on 03.11.2018 vide invoice no.000569 amounting to Rs.1,593/-; the OP No.1 at the time of selling the said weighing machine, had assured the complainant that the machine was genuine and was of a very high quality. It is stated that, after checking the weighting machine as well as the bill, the following details were found missing from the machine as well as bill supplied by the seller:-

i.      No address of the manufacturer was available anywhere on the machine or on any bill or the papers. In fact the bill did not even contain the name of the manufacturer.

ii.      There was no date of manufacture or expiry mentioned anywhere on the bill or n the machine or any other paper.

iii.     No MRP was mentioned anywhere on the machine, or any other papers including the bill.

iv.     There was no guarantee or warranty mentioned anywhere on the machine or on the bill or any other paper, supplied by the seller.

                On further checking of the bar code given on the machine, it was found that the machine was not manufactured in India and the same had been imported from China. It is stated that the complainant was never told by the OP No.1, at the time of selling of the machine, that the machine was imported from China & that it was nowhere mentioned on the machine and on the bill that machine was imported from China. It is alleged that the OP No.1 has sold a low quality product to the complainant declaring the same of the higher quality. The OP No.1 did not provide the desired information on 05.11.2018, when he was contacted, nor he admitted that he had sold a low quality product, imported from China. It is stated that the OP No.1 refused to take back the said machine and misbehaved with the complainant. A complaint was lodged on 03.12.2018 with Additional Director Food & Supplies & Consumer Affairs and Legal Meteorology, at Chandigarh, followed by another application on 20.02.2018. It is stated that the complainant appeared before the Additional Director Food & Supplies & Consumer Affairs and Legal Meteorology, at Chandigarh on 26.02.2019 as well as on 08.03.2019 and thereafter, he was informed that fine/penalty amounting to Rs.2,500/- was imposed upon the OP No.1. It is further stated that the complainant was informed by the said office that the machine had been deposited with the Office of Deputy Commissioner. It is stated that the weighting machine was declared at a very less price and the same was sold to the complainant by charging higher price. Due to the act and conduct of OP No.1, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement by filing reply mentioning that the complainant being a retired Government servant mis-using his powers has caused harassment to the OP No.1, who is running his business in a smooth manner by way of filing the complaints in several departments. It is stated that a complaint was filed by the complaint in the office of Additional Director Food & Supplies & Consumer Affairs and Legal Meteorology, at Chandigarh on 27.12.2018, wherein fine was imposed upon him(OP No.1) and the same was deposited. It is stated that the weighting machine was duly checked qua quality and price before its purchase by the complainant. It is submitted that the machine was having MRP, date of packing and the complainant had purchased the same after satisfying completely before its purchase. It is submitted that the complainant again visited the shop of OP No.1 on 24.11.2018 with the weighting machine, which had already been used by him by opening the packing of the same. It is denied that the complainant was his behaved by the staff of OP No.1 or by the complainant. It is stated that the complainant threatened the OP No.1 in the presence of constable Mr. Lalit Kumar and the allegations leveled against him(OP No.1) are false, baseless and meritless.

3.             Replication to the written statements of the OP No.1 was filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint while controverting the contentions of the OP No.1.

4.             To prove the case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Op No.1 has tendered an affidavit as Annexure R-A along with documents as Annexure R-1 to R-3 and close the evidence.

5.             We have heard the complainant as well as learned counsel for the OP No.1 and gone through the entire record available on file including written arguments filed by the OP No.1, minutely and carefully.

6.             The complainant, during arguments, reiterating the averments made in the complaint has alleged the deficiencies and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1 on the following counts:-

i.      That the weighting machine as sold to him by OP No.1 on 03.11.2018 was of sub-standard and low quality.

ii.      That the OP No.1 concealed the fact that the weighting machine in question was imported from China.

iii.     That complainant was kept in darkness qua the address of the manufacturer, date of manufacture, expiry date and MRP etc. by OP No.1, while selling the machine in question as the same were not found on the bill or on the machine.

                Concluding the arguments, the complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

7.             On the other hand, the complaint is hotly contested by the OP No.1 by controverting and rebutting the contention of the complainant by filing reply as well as affidavit(Annexure R-A). The learned counsel on behalf of the OP No.1, while reiterating the averments as made in the reply as well as affidavit(Annexure R-A), contended that machine in question was not got tested by the complainant from any expert so as to establish his plea of low quality of the machine. It is contended that, in the absence of any expert report, no allegations can be proved qua the quality of the machine.

8.             Regarding the plea about the machine imported from China, the learned counsel argued that the complainant was duly informed prior to the sale that the machine in question had been imported from China and thus, there was no concealment on the part of the OP No.1.

9.             Regarding the plea of the complainant qua the non-furnishing of necessary details about the particulars of the manufacturer, date of manufacturing, MRP etc., the learned counsel invited our attention towards the label Annexure R-1 & Annexure R-1(Colly), whereby the necessary details qua the machine were provided to the complainant. It is vehemently contended that the label(Annexure R-1) was affixed on the machine, which had ISO 9001 certification and thus, there was no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part  of the OP no.1.

10.            In addition to above submissions, the learned counsel on behalf of the OP No.1 vehemently contended that no person can be punished twice for the same offence. It is contended that a sum of Rs.2,500/- as fine had already been deposited by the OP no.1 in the matter of complaint lodged by the complainant with the Additional Director Food & Supplies & Consumer Affairs and Legal Meteorology, at Chandigarh and thus, the present complaint is not maintainable. It is argued that the said fine amounting to Rs.2,500/- was deposited under the provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2019 and as per to Section 3 of the Legal Meteorology Act, the provisions of Meteorology Act has overriding effect over any other law and thus, the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable. In support of his contentions reliance has been placed on the following case laws:-

1.     Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala & Ors. Vs. Shahzada Nand & Sons & Ors. in Civil Appeals Nos.494 & 495 of 1964, decided on 19.01.1966(SC).
2.     The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Aman Mitta & Ors.MANU/SC/ 1202/2019.

11.            After hearing the rival contentions of the complainant as well as the learned counsel on behalf of the OP No.1, it is an admitted factual position that the OP No.1 was penalized by Additional Director Food & Supplies & Consumer Affairs and Legal Meteorology, at Chandigarh by imposing of a penalty of Rs.2,500/- on account of statutory violations qua non furnishing  of address of manufacturer, date of manufacturing, MRP etc. As per Annexure R-3, it is crystal clear that the OP No.1 had got the offences compounded, under the enforcement Rules 2011, by paying a penalty of Rs.2,500/-. Pertinently, the OP No.1 had voluntarily got the offences compounded without raising any objections qua the statutory violations. Therefore, we find no force and substance in the assertions and contentions of the OP No.1 that the complainant was duly provided all the relevant information vide Annexure R-1 qua the manufacturer, manufacturing date, MRP date, expiry date etc.. Since the OP No.1 has been found guilty by the concerned department qua statutory violations, no other proof is required to establish deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1. It is pertinent to mention here that the proceedings before the Additional Director Food & Supplies & Consumer Affairs and Legal Meteorology, at Chandigarh were/are of quashi criminal nature, whereas under the CP Act, the consumer has right to be compensated as per provisions contained in Section 39. Further, as per Section 9(ii) of the CP Act, the consumer has right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods etc.  so as to protect him against unfair trade practices. Therefore, the case laws as relied upon by the learned counsel for OP No.1 as well as provisions contained in Section 3 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2019 are of no help to the case of OP No.1.

12.            In the light of above discussion, the lapses, deficiencies and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 are well proved and hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

13.            Coming to the relief, it is found that the complainant has sought the refund of Rs.1,593/- i.e. the purchase price of the weighting machine along with interest. Further, the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- has also been claimed on account of mental agony and harassment.

14.            As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions against OPs No.1.

1. To refund a sum of Rs.1,593/- to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum (S.I.) w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

 

15.            The OPs No.1 shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OP failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced on:03.05.2023

 

 

 

 

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav      Dr.Sushma Garg          Satpal

                      Member                  Member                  President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                 Satpal

                                            President