Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/486

Dinesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Roys - Opp.Party(s)

ABSharma Adv.

22 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 486 of 17.08.2015

Date of Decision            :   22.03.2016 

 

Dinesh Kumar Mehta son of Yogesh Kumar Mehta r/o H.No.5359, St.No.8, Anand Nagar, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

Royal Rays, Punjab Mata Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Opp.P.N.B.Ludhiana. 

 

…Opposite party

 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                                

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :          Sh.A.B.Sharma, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh.Arvinder Pal Singh, Proprietor

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) filed by complainant Sh.Dinesh Kumar Mehta against Op by alleging that  he   purchased  1.5  Ton Window A.C. of Hitachi company with three Star rating for consideration of Rs.32,000/- vide invoice No.2129 dated 13.6.2015 from Op. Stablizer was also purchased for the said A.C. vide invoice No.2137 dated 15.6.2015 for Rs.2500/-. At the time of selling A.C, Op assured that AC being of new model is latest one. Said A.C. was got financed from Bajaj Finance Limited by Op, for which, Rs.750/- was charged. After purchase, OP failed to provide any card to the complainant. After installation of the A.C. in the premises of the complainant, it was noticed that colour of the installed A.C. is different than that of the selected one. Installed A.C was of white colour, but selected A.C. was of cream colour. After few days of installation of A.C.,it came to the notice of the complainant as if the supplied A.C.was manufactured in June 2013 and the rate mentioned on the slip attached with the A.C. was Rs.29,950/-. Ops charged Rs.2050/- in excess from the complainant and the supplied A.C. was an old version A.C. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP, prayer made for directing the OP to replace the A.C. of the complainant with the latest model. Even prayer made for directing the OP to return the excess charged amount of Rs.2050/- along with interest. Directions also sought against OP to hand over the Bajaj Finance Card. Compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- even claimed.

2.                In the written statement submitted by the OP, it is claimed that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands because he has suppressed the material facts. Admittedly, A.C. was purchased through invoice No.2129 dated 13.6.2015. It is claimed that though price of the A.C.mentioned as Rs.29,950/-, but through invoice Rs.32,000/- were charged because amount of Rs.2050/- was charged as cost of stabilizer and fitting. Bajaj Finance Limited financed the product and not the accessories. As Rs.2050/- was not available with the complainant and as such, complainant requested OP to include the cost of accessories, stabilizer and fittings. So, on the request of the complainant, bill of Rs.32,000/- was issued. In fact,A.C.and other products are placed in the showroom and any customer is free to select the product as per his choice. Complainant with his own choice selected the A.C. It is denied that Rs.750/- was received in excess from the complainant for getting the product financed from Bajaj Finance Limited. Rather,  it is claimed that OP has no concern with the issuance of the card by   Bajaj Finance Limited. Transaction regarding issuance of Bajaj Finance Card was between the complainant and Bajaj Finance Limited. A.C.selected by the complainant was delivered and fitted at his house in his presence. No objection was raised by the complainant at the time of fitting. No excess amount was received by OP actually. It is claimed that complaint being frivolous, merits dismissal, particularly when the same is filed with ulterior motive.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C3 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, Sh.Arvinder Pal Singh, Proprietor of OP concern tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.RA and then closed the evidence.

5.                Oral arguments were addressed and heard. Records gone through carefully.

6.                 It is vehemently contended by counsel for the complainant that through invoice Ex.C1, Rs.32,000/- were charged from the complainant for sale of Hitachi A.C. along with stabilizer, but A.C of manufacturing year June 2013 has been supplied. That A.C. of June 2013 has price of Rs.29,950/- as disclosed by  Tag detached from fitted A.C. Copy of that Tag produced on record as Ex.C3. On this Tag, price including all taxes mentioned as Rs.29,950/-. As A.C. was purchased in June 2015 through invoice Ex.C1 and as such, it is contended that it was the duty of OP to supply the A.C. of new model of 2015 to complainant. As old model of June 2013 supplied to the complainant and as such, it is contended that an unfair trade practice adopted by the OP. Besides, it is contended that the supplied A.C. is of different colour then that of selected one and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is admitted in the complaint as well as through affidavit of complainant that A.C. had already been installed at the premises of the complainant. It is not the case of complainant that he was absent   at the time of installation of the AC at his premises. If that be the position, then certainly submission of OP has force that complainant could have objected to the fitting of A.C. of different colour than that of selected one at the time of installation of A.C. itself. This complaint filed on 17.8.2015, though A.C. in question was purchased on 13.6.2015 and as such, it is obvious that virtually the complainant kept mum for two months after purchase of the A.C. No written protest shown to be lodged with the OP by the complainant for claiming that A.C of different colour than selected one has been installed at his premises. Why complainant allowed OP to install the A.C. of different colour than the selected one, qua that no explanation offered. As installation of purchased A.C. at the premises of complainant took place with his knowledge and as such, now complainant estopped from claiming that A.C of different colour has been supplied to him, particularly when the colour of the A.C. contracted to be purchased not mentioned in invoice Ex.C1.

7.                Even if on Tag Ex.C3, the MRP including all taxes mentioned as Rs.29,950/-, but amount of Rs.32,000/- charged through invoice Ex.C1, despite that deficiency in service on the part of OP cannot be inferred because on Tag Ex.C3, it is not mentioned that stabilizer will also be provided to the purchaser in priced MRP of Rs.29,950/-. The brand of the supplied stabilizer mentioned in Ex.C2 is CG Vidyut 170V PC and as such, the same is different than that of Hitachi Branch of A.C.purchased by the complainant through invoice Ex.C1. No material produced to show that Hitachi company sells stabilizer along with A.C or that window A.C. product of Hitachi company always sold with stabilizer of different make. In the absence of this evidence on record, it has to be held that actually the charged price of Rs.32,000/- through invoice Ex.C1 includes Rs.2050/- as price of the stabilizer, as claimed by Op in his written statement and affidavit Ex.RA. Contract of purchase comes into existence by mutual understanding and as there is nothing on record to suggest that contract of purchase in this case was arrived at between the parties with understanding that stabilizer will also  be supplied in the charged price of A.C. and as such, if bill Ex.C1 issued for an amount of Rs.32,000/-, than due to that alone, it cannot be inferred that excess price charged by the OP from the complainant.

8.                 A customer is to get the product financed from a company. As the A.C. in question was got financed by the complainant from Bajaj Finance Limited and that is why in bill Ex.C1 customer name mentioned as Bajaj Finance Limited c/o Dinesh K. Mehta. No written agreement or literature produced to show that Bajaj Finance Limited financed the A.C. in question to complainant at asking of OP. So certainly submission advanced by Op has force that contract of financing stands on different footing than that of contract of purchase of A.C. by the complainant from OP. If that be the position, then certainly OP cannot be     saddled with responsibility of providing finance card to the complainant, particularly when Bajaj Finance Limited not impleaded as a party. If at all card by Bajaj Finance Limited not provided to the complainant, then complainant has separate remedy against Bajaj Finance Limited and as such seeking of finance card from Op by the complainant is improper.

9.                In para no.1 of the complaint itself, it is mentioned that complainant purchased stabilizer along with the purchased A.C from the OP vide invoice No.2137 dated 15.6.2015 for Rs.2500/-. Copy of that invoice produced on record as Ex.C2 and as such, the same itself reflect as if complainant was aware that the price of the purchased A.C. as Rs.32,000/- was not including the cost price of stabilizer. In view of that there was no contract as per which OP was under obligation to supply the stabilizer in the MRP of Rs.29,950/- mentioned on the Tag Ex.C3. Being so submission of complainant has no force that excess price of Rs.2050/- was charged from him.

10.              If June 2013 model A.C was supplied to the complainant in June 2015, then due to that alone, deficiency in service on the part of OP cannot be inferred because the month and year of manufacture of purchased A.C.through invoice Ex.C1 is not mentioned in it (Ex.C1). In the absence of mentioning of month  and year of manufacture in bill Ex.C1, it can’t be held that actually Op contracted to sell the latest Hitachi Model of 2015 to the complainant. A dealer receives stocks of branded products sometimes after a year or so and as such, if A.C. of June 2013 model supplied to the complainant, then in the absence of proof of contract for supply of June 2015 model alone, it has to be held that complainant failed to prove that actually OP contracted to sell 2015 model alone at the time of issuance of invoice Ex.C1, particularly when no. of AC mentioned in Ex.C1 as 130G04273. Amount of Rs.32,000/- paid as settled price and as such, complainant cannot claim now that excess amount has been charged from him because Courts not to bargain for the parties. Complainant at the time of purchase or at the time of getting the bill issued or at the time of getting the A.C. installed in his premises could have pointed out to OP that the supplied model is not the model selected by him. No objection at the time of issuance of bill or of installation of A.C. shown to be raised by the complainant and as such, now the complainant estopped by his act and conduct from claiming that excess amount charged from him or model supplied was not contracted to be purchased by him, particularly when no. of AC mentioned as 130G04273 in Ex.C1= Ex.C3 each  So looking from any angle, complaint merits dismissal.

11.              Therefore, as a sequel to the above discussion, complaint dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

12.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Sat Paul Garg)                         (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                   President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:22.03.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.