DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K.,Member Date of filing: 20.02.2019
CC/41/2019
Murali, - Complainant
S/o.Kunju, Praseetha Nivas,
Iruppakkad, Prirayiri P.O.
Palakkad.
(By Adv. Raghudas S G)
Vs
Ratheesh,
S/o. Venugopal,
Proprietor, YEMKAY Home Appliances
V &T Aracde,16/63 (27), - Opposite Party
Palakkad.
(Adv.K Dhananjayan)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A., Member
Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
1. The complainant Purchased a mixer jar made of SUJATHA company (chutney attachment) from the opposite party’s shop on 13.01.2019 and paid Rs.560/- (including 18% GST). After reaching home when he checked the carton, he found the sticker showing the prize of jar affixed by the manufacturer was torned off and another sticker showing the name of the opposite party shop with price as MRP 565 was affixed on the jar. He approached the opposite party for clearing this and, the opposite party told that the actual price of the jar was Rs.565/- and he is selling it in a lower price for customer satisfaction. The sticker in the box might have gone at the time of handling of the product by his employees.
In order to clear his doubts, he enquired about the actual prize of jar and came to know that its actual prize on 2017 is MRP 377/- The SUJATHA company has never came up with a jar having MRP 565. So the opposite party has cheated the complainant and sold the jar for making unjust enrichment. The opposite party had sold it for a higher price and when asked about this, he harassed the complainant. The conduct of opposite party had caused mental agony and physical strain to the complainant.
So this complaint is filed for getting the excess amount Rs.183/-, collected by the opposite party together with 12% interest from 13.01.2019 and to get Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical strain suffered by the complainant and Rs.1 lakh as compensation for other inconveniences suffered by the complainant.
2. Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed their version.
3. Pleadings of opposite party in their version is as follows.
The complainant has not purchased the chutney attachment from the opposite party’s shop, but another person has purchased the alleged product. He asked for a Sujatha chutney jar or a jar which suits to similar like mixies and the opposite party had given the product to that person. The opposite party did not pluck the original bill or affix another as alleged by the complainant. What is contained in the bill and in the product is the same. As the complainant has not purchased any product from the opposite party, he is not a “Consumer”.
The true facts as stated by the opposite party is that there was an acquaintance by the present complainant with the opposite party. During that time the opposite party requested the complainant who is an electrician to repair the home appliances like mixie, grinder and other electrical appliances whenever there is a demand from the customer to repair it. But he was never been employed by him temporarily, permanently or on a daily wages. Whenever repairing is needed, the opposite party called the complainant and paid the amount obtained from the customer. But due to his misbehavior with the customers and staff on certain occasions, the opposite party warned him to behave properly. This has caused enimity and due to it the complainant colluded with the person who purchased the jar and the present complaint is the result of that.
There is no Deficiency in service/Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the opposite party. The reliefs sought by the complainant is not sustainable and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.
4. From the pleadings of both parties, the following.
Points were framed for consideration
(1) Whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer
Protection Act?
(2) Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving that the opposite party had sold the mixer jar for an excess amount by removing its original price?
(3) Whether there is any Deficiency in service/Unfair Trade practice on the part of opposite party?
(4) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
(5) Reliefs, as cost & compensation.
Point No. 1
5. The opposite party’s contention is that the complainant did not purchase the mixer jar from his shop, but it was purchased by another person. As there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party, he is neither a ‘complainant’ nor a ‘consumer’.
The complainant produced the invoice showing the purchase of the product which is marked as Ext A1 (without objection). Further there was no attempt on the part of the opposite party to cross examine the complainant to prove their contention. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the complainant has proved that the product was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party’s shop on payment of Rs.560/- as consideration and he is a ‘consumer’ as envisaged under the C.P Act.
Point No.2
6. The complainant’s main contention is that the opposite party charged Rs.560/-including GST from the complainant for the purchase of mixer jar ‘Sujatha Chutney Attachment’. He subsequently noted that the portion where the amount of the product written by the manufacturer was removed from the carton and a sticker showing the name of the opposite party shop was seen affixed inside the chutney attachment where the amount was shown as Rs.565/-.
On enquiry, he was informed by the opposite party that the sticker might have gone at the time of handling of the product by his employees and the actual amount of the product is Rs.565/- and he has collected Rs.560/-, lesser than the actual MRP.
7. The complainant further contended that he enquired about this product and came to know that the maximum retail price of this product manufactured in 2017 is only Rs.377/-. The same was removed by the opposite party and affixed his own sticker to show the price as Rs.565/- The complainant filed an application IA 202/2019 for directing the opposite party to produce the original invoice showing it’s MRP and the agency from which he had purchased the product and also the address and details of the dealer of SUJATHA Mixer Grinder in Palakkad district.
The application was allowed and for the production of documents several postings were given, but the opposite party has not complied the order of this Commission. The Commission has noted this while passing order in IA 180/22 filed by the complainant to issue summons to witness.
8. The complainant filed IA 180/22 to issue summons to one Mr.Jimmy, the proprietor of Grace Distributors. He contended that on enquiry, he came to know that the above named Distributors are the dealers of Sujatha Mixer Grinder and its accessories in Palakkad and the complainant wanted to examine the witness to bring out the veracity of his contention about the actual price of the product. While dismissing this application the Commission observed that, “On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of this petition, we find material in the averment that the opposite party has blatantly violated the order of this Commission in IA 202/2019 on 23.10.2019. The opposite party has also failed to file affidavit as to why the Order is not complied with.
The Commission further observed that “This conduct of willful disobedience of a direct order of this Commission is ample enough to resort to a presumption of Deficiency in service/Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the opposite party”.
9. From all these, it is evident that the complainant has taken ample effort to prove his contention. If the opposite party had sold the product in its original price , he could have very well complied with the Order of the Commission. So an adverse inference is drawn infavour of the complainant. Point No. 2 is decided accordingly.
Points 3 to 5
10. From the answer to point No.2, we resort to the contention that opposite party is liable for an ‘Unfair Trade Practice of selling the products at a higher rate than its actual MRP and thereby making unjust enrichment. This is an Unfair Trade Practice under the Consumer Protection Act for which the opposite party is liable to compensate.
In the result, the complaint is allowed.
1. We direct the opposite party to refund the excess amount of Rs.183/-
collected from the complainant together with interest at the rate of
9% from 13.01.2019.
2. We also direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5000/- for their Unfair
Trade Practice and Rs.5000/- for the mental agony suffered by the
complainant and Rs.7500/- as cost of the litigation.
The above amounts are be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite party is liable to give Rs.250/- as solatium per month or part thereof till the date of payment.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd day of September, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1–Original tax invoice No.C-19568 dated 13.01.2019 issued by EMKAY HOME
APPLIANCES.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties:Nil
Witness examined from complainant’s side:- NIL
Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- NIL
Cost: 7500/- (Rupees Seven thousand five hundred only).
