This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on 28-05-14 in the presence of Sri Sk.Saida, Representative of complainant; P.Venkateswarlu, advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:- The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony for opposite party charging Re.6/- extra over MRP on ‘ Thums Up ‘ bottle and Rs.5,000/- as expenses.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant on 08-08-2013 purchased 750ml ‘ Thums Up ‘ bottle from the opposite party for which the opposite party charged Rs.36/-as against printed MRP of Rs30/-. The opposite party did not heed the request of the opposite party to collect the printed rate on the bottle. The opposite party failed to issue any receipt or bill though demanded. The same amounted to unfair trade practice constituting deficiency of service. The complainant suffered mental agony on account of such attitude of the opposite party and estimated the same at Rs.25,000/-. The complaint also incurred Rs5,000/- towards traveling expenses. The complaint therefore be allowed.
3. The averments of the version of opposite party in brief as follows:
The complainant, opposite party and one S.Meera Vali are neighbors. The complainant and the said Meera Vali are behind the litigation. The said Meera Vali plays vital role in solving disputes in Piduguralla town under the guise of consumer disputes. Earlier misunderstandings arose among the complainant, opposite party and the said Meeravalli. The opposite party learnt that the complainant is habituated to lodge false complaints to have wrongful gain by blackmailing innocent persons. The opposite became a scapegoat during that process. The complaint is nothing but a chance litigation at the instance of the said Meera vali and has to be dismissed with costs of Rs5,000/-.
4. Ex.A-1 was marked on behalf of complainant. No documents were marked on behalf of opposite party.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
- To what relief?
6. POINT NO.1:- The contention of the complaint that non issuance of bill by a trader and charging more than MRP amounted to unfair trade practice coming under the purview of deficiency in service is undisputed. Burden is on the complainant to prove both the allegations in view of the defence raised by the opposite party. The complainant filed third party affidavit of one S. Meera vali along with the complaint.
7. The complainant did not file any receipt or bill showing that the opposite party sold Ex.A-1 and charged extra over MRP rate. Name of the said Meera Vali did find place in the complaint. Some documentary evidence in our considered opinion is required to prove allegations of the complaint in view of the opposite party’s counter allegations. In absence of any documentary evidence the contention of the complaint in our considered view can not be accepted. We therefore answer this point against the complainant.
7. POINT NO. 2 : In view of findings on point No.1 the complainant is not entitled to any damages.
8. POINT No.3:- In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Destroy cool drink bottle (Ex.A-1) after the appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 03rd day of June, 2014.
Sd/-XXX Sd/-XXX
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.Nos. | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
A1 | - | Thums Up 750 ML bottle ( empty) |
For opposite party:- NIL
Sd/-XXX
PRESIDENT
NB: The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.
