Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/21/2013

S.JAYARAMAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHIVARI MEDICAL - Opp.Party(s)

06 Mar 2015

ORDER

 

 

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present:  Thiru.J. JAYARAM,                              PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

                                                      Tmt. P. BAKIAVATHY,                        MEMBER.  

                                                                                       F.A.No.21/2013

(Against the order in C.C.No.145/2012, dated 15.11.2012 on the file of District Forum, Coimbatore)  

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH 2015

S. Jayeraman,

S/o.  Shanmuga Nadar,

6/125, 3^rd Street, P.M. Samy Colony,

R.S.Puram, Coimbatore– 641 002.                           Appellant/Complainant

                                                                                         

                    Vs

Proprietor,

Sri Wari Medicals,

Door No.32, R.G. Street,

Flower Market,

Mini Super Market Corner,

Coimbatore – 641 001.                                          Respondent/Opposite party

                           

Counsel for Appellants/Opposite Parties:   M/s. S. Jayaraman, Advocate.

Counsel for Respondent/Complainant   :   M/s. B.L. Lawanya, Advocate.         

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 03.02.2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:

                                    ORDER

THIRU.J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

 

1.             This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in C.C.No.145/2012, dated 15.11.2012, dismissing the complaint.

2.          The case of the complainant is that he purchased medicines on 03.01.2012 from the opposite party medical shop for Rs.43/- and the opposite party had displayed a board offering discount of Rs.12% for the medicines purchased from their shop; but the opposite party did not give discount for the medicines purchased by the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint.  

3.          According to the opposite party, they offered discount for the purchases for Rs.50/- or more and in this case, the complainant purchased medicines only for Rs.43/- and so he is not entitled to claim discount and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

4.        The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the part of the opposite party, in that, the complainant purchased medicines for Rs.43/- only and so he cannot claim discount since the discount can be claimed only for the purchase of medicines for Rs.50/- or more.  Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant has preferred this appeal. 

5.        It is contended by the appellant/complainant that he purchased medicines for Rs.43/- from the opposite party and the opposite party did not give discount as offered by them in the board displayed by the opposite party.

6.              Per contra, the respondent/opposite party would contend that they offered discount at the rate of 10% for purchases above Rs.50/- and 12% for the purchases above Rs.300/- and the complainant purchased medicines only for Rs.43/- and hence he is not entitled to claim any benefit of discount.

7.               The opposite party has filed M.O.1 series photographs of the boards displayed by them offering discount.   When we see the photographs, we find that 10% discount is offered to the purchases exceeding Rs.50/- and 12% discount for the purchases exceeding Rs.300/-.  Therefore, the complainant is  not entitled to claim any discount since he purchased  medicines only for Rs.43/- and therefore, we hold that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. 

8.             The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. There is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we agree with the finding and decision of the District Forum dismissing the complaint.  There is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9.            In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District, Forum, dismissing the complaint. No order as to costs in the appeal.     

 

 

P. BAKIAVATHY,                                                      J. JAYARAM,

    MEMBER                                                PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.