Delhi

North

CC/71/2021

RANJEET KUMAR GIRI - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.P. ELECTRICAL & BATTERT PRODUCTS - Opp.Party(s)

UDAY SHANKAR PANDEY, AJEET KUMAR MISHRA

19 Jun 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

CC No.: 71/2021

 

Sh. Ranjeet Kumar Giri

S/o Sh. Surender Giri

H. No.561, 2^nd Floor,

Near DAV Public School,

Sector-37, Amamnagar,

Faridabad, Haryana

Pin code-121003                                                                                           …                                Complainant

                                                                                                Vs

 

S.P. Electronics & Battery Products,

Through its proprietor,

A/1-2, Bara Bazar,

Opposite MCD office,

O/s Tikona Park, Kashmere Gate,

New Delhi-110006                                                                                      …                              Opposite Party

 

ORDER

19/06/2023

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

1.            The present complaint has been filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that Complainant purchased  battery for his motorcycle from the Opposite Party for an amount of Rs.2,380/- while MRP rate was printed as Rs.2,153/-. It has been alleged that the OP erased the said MRP by using fluid on it. It has been alleged that the OP refused to give the invoice/bill with GST and asked the Complainant to make the payment in cash only. The complainant expressed his inability to make the cash payment and made payment of Rs.2,380/- through PHONE-PE. It is further stated that at the time of purchasing the said battery, the Complainant was not aware that the same battery is as available for Rs.1,600/- in the market and after noticing it,  the Complainant immediately met the OP and requested him to return the excess paid amount but the OP did not pay any heed towards the requests of the Complainant. The Complainant sent the Whatsapp message to the OP for refunding the same. The screenshot of whatsapp message is also filed with the complaint. Thereafter, the Complainant has sent legal notice dated 30.01.2021 to the OP for refund of excess amount charged from him for battery of his vehicle alongwith compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment caused but the OP did not reply to the said legal notice. Therefore, the Complainant has been filed this complaint praying:-

 

1. for directions to the OP to return an amount of Rs.600/- to the Complainant with interest @ 12% p.a;
2. for directions to the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, physical harassment, damages suffered by the Complainant on account of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice;
3. for directions to the OP to pay the litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- as the OP has compelled the Complainant to file the present complaint case;
4. any other or further relief, which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Complainant and against the OP.

 

2.            Accordingly, notice was issued to the OP and in response to the Notice issued, the OP has filed its reply dated 01/02/2022, in the registry of this commission, stating that the Complainant purchased Royal Enfield Motor Cycle Battery Type 12 vide bill No. 1865 dated 25.12.2020 and paid Rs.2,380/- through PhonePe but after few hours, he returned the same and asked for Battery XLT29 in Amaron. The OP informed the Complainant that it was very difficult because warranty card has already been filled but for the sake of customer, he arranged the required battery and issued another bill No.2020-21/1865 dated 25.12.2020 for  Rs.1,651/- which has been filed with reply.  It has further been added by the OP that the balance amount Rs.730/- was paid by cash to customer Ranjeet Kumar Giri and no balance amount is to be paid to Complainant.

3.            The complainant has countered the aforesaid reply of the OP stating that he does not own Royal Enfield Motor cycle and has not purchased any battery type 12XL14L-AZ which is for Royal Enfield motor cycle. He has Bajaj Dominar Motor cycle and    battery of Royal Enfield doesn’t even fit in this bike. The complainant has further stated that he had bought BTZ9R and the OP has incorrectly stated that he asked for Battery XLT29 in return for previous one, which is clearly a false statement as BTZ9R is the only battery for Dominar Motorcycle and the duplicate bill, which has been filed by the OP,  is not of the battery bought  by him. The complainant has further denied the receipt of any payment of Rs.730/- from OP because he has sent Whatsapp text dated 26.12.2020 to OP asking for refund of excess paid money but the OP didn’t reply that he has refunded this amount. The complainant has further pointed out that the duplicate bill No.2020-21/1865 dated 25.12.2020 for Rs.1,615/-, filed by the OP, indicates that   “Buyer’s order no. was delivered on 26.12.2020” which is not true.

4.            Both the parties have filed evidence affirming their versions by way of affidavit and argued the case also. Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidences/arguments put forth by the parties and it has been observed that:-

1. It is admitted by the OP that a battery was sold to the Complainant on 25.12.2020 and the payment of Rs.2,380/- was received through PhonePe  but he could not produce the invoice issued for this transaction. He has further stated that he replaced this battery with another model of the Amaron battery as per the demand of the customer and issued another bill No.2020-21/1865 dated 25.12.2020 (on the same day) for Rs.1615/- and the balance payment of Rs.730/- was paid to the Complainant in cash. This defense taken by the OP, for refund of money in cash, does not sound convincing because OP has accepted the payment through Digital Mode i.e. PhonePe but has not clarified as to why he has not refunded the money through PhonePe or any other digital mode (which he was using to accept the money digitally from the customers) to keep his accounting system updated to justify the amount of transactions before taxation authorities.
2. The OP is a registered dealer under GST Act and could have filed the GST records of Sale return claiming refund of GST on the cancelled transactions as per requirement of the GST Act, but he has not filed such records before the commission which proves the allegations levelled by the complainant, for refusal of OP to issue the bill/invoice, are true.
3. The non-filing of the Invoice/bill for sales transaction of Rs.2,380/- also corroborates the allegation of Complainant that the OP had not issued/given the invoice for the sale of Rs.2,380/- which amounts to unfair trade practices and also violation of the GST Act & Rules applicable to the OP being a registered dealer under the GST Act. The Affidavit dated 09.09.2022 filed by the OP, is also defective in view of the fact that the name of the Proprietor has not been mentioned in the Affidavit and the verification of the contents of the Affidavit has also not been signed ,as such,  it cannot be relied upon.
4. The OP has also not explained reasons for not-responding to the “WhatsApp” messages and legal notice sent by the Complainant to OP, specifically when he claims that Rs.730/- was refunded to complainant on 25-12-20, which proves that the OPs conduct has not been fair in this transaction and corroborates the allegations levelled by the Complainant.
5. The Complainant in the rejoinder/ counter reply filed on 31.03.2022 has also raised valid issues rebutting the reply of the OP and thereafter, the OP has completely been silent on points highlighted by the Complainant while submitting evidence by way of Affidavit. The OP has also not clarified its position on these issues during arguments. Moreover, the Affidavit dated 09.09.2022 filed by the OP has also been found unacceptable being defective one.

 

5.            In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that the complainant has suffered directly due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices adopted by the OP. Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OP (M/s. S.P. Electronics & Battery Products) to refund Rs.600/- (Rupees Six Hundred only) within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 30.03.2021 (date of filing of complaint) till the date of the payment. Besides, the OP is also directed to pay Rs.15000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as compensation to the Complainant for the mental pain, agony, harassment and litigation expenses. It is clarified that if the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OP to the Complainant within the period as directed above, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

6.            Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

                                   ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                                  DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR                                                                                      Member                                                                                                President                                                DCDRC-1 (North)                                                                            DCDRC-1 (North)