The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Shree Mahavir Traders, Vivekananda Marg, Balasore and O.P No.2 is the Kansai Nerolac Paints Co. Ltd., UPS/DC Industrial Area, Remabal Nagar, U.P.
1. The hub of the dispute is that the Complainant had purchased 10 Litres Nerolac paints from O.P No.1 vide Bill No.228, dt.04.04.2015 on payment of Rs.6,350/-, but original printed rate is Rs.4,825/-. On verification, the Complainant came to know this fact at his residence, where the cost of the said paints is much higher than M.R.P. Thus, the Complainant had been to O.P No.1 and asked to refund the excess amount taken by him, but the O.P No.1 refused to refund the same, which caused mental agony for deficiency-in-service and unfair trade practice rendered by the O.P No.1. Thus, the Complainant finding no other suitable alternative filed this case for necessary relief. Prayer for refund of excess amount by the O.Ps along with interest and compensation towards mental agony and cost of litigation.
2. O.P No.1 appeared through his Advocate and filed written version, where he has denied about maintainability as well as its cause of action. The O.P No.1 has further submitted that the O.P No.1 is a very busy businessman, so also is the only active female member of her family. Accordingly, the employee of O.P No.1 used to handle/manage her business counter/shop. Thus, the employees of O.P No.1 used to provide money receipts/cash memos to different Customers, who have/had absolutely no basic and fundamental ideas about the purchase price and maximum retail price of any colours, being sold to different Customers. Copies of original bill having been misplaced in the voluminous records and some of them having been destroyed by white ants and rats and it is not possible to trace out such document on the part of O.P No.1. However, the original bill and colour container are within the custody and possession of the Complainant, as written by the Complainant in his complaint. Moreover, the O.Ps have also submitted that the Complainant at no point of time has brought this matter in dispute to the knowledge/notice of the present O.P. Though not conceded, alternatively it is being pleaded that, had it been brought to the knowledge and notice of this O.P, at appropriate time, the same could have been redressed, in its true perspectives. Though O.P No.1 appeared through his Advocate and filed written version, he did not take part in hearing as his Advocate remained absent on the date of hearing and also did not pay the earlier cost of Rs.200/- imposed on him.
3. Though sufficient opportunities were given to the O.P No.2, but the O.P No.2 neither appeared nor filed his written version in this case, hence O.P No.2 is set ex-parte.
4. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determinations of this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable in the eye of Law.
(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case by the Complainant.
(iii) Whether the O.P No.1 has taken excess price from the Complainant towards the alleged goods.
(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
5. The Complainant has filed certain documents in support of his claim, but O.P No.1 has not filed any documents in support of his claim. O.P No.1 partly admitted and partly denied regarding receiving of extra payment from Complainant towards alleged Nerolac paints. The O.P No.1 is the Authorised Dealer/ distributor and there is no dispute in this regard. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant. In the bill, the price taken towards 10 Litres of Nerolac paints has been mentioned as Rs.6,350/-, whereas the photocopy of the paints container discloses the price as Rs.4,825/-. So the contents of the complaint petition seems to be correct. The O.P No.1 has not given any satisfactory explanation regarding taking of excess amount and the plea taken by him is not genuine and acceptable. So, basing on these materials, it has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that in spite of several request to O.P No.1, they did not take any step for settlement of the claim by returning the excess amount taken in this regard. Neither O.P No.1 nor his Advocate took part in hearing and also did not pay the cost to the Complainant imposed on him as mentioned earlier. The action of the O.P No.1 clearly amounts to unfair trade practice, for which this Forum is in the opinion that this Consumer case is maintainable in the eye of Law and the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
6. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, this Forum is of the opinion that the O.P No.1 is directed to return the excess amount of Rs.1,525/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this case i.e. 11.09.2015 and also pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant; failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum, which will meet the ends of justice in this case. Hence, Ordered:-
O R D E R
The Consumer case is allowed on contest against the O.P No.1 and on ex-parte against the O.P No.2 with cost. The O.P No.1 is directed to return the excess amount of Rs.1,525/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this case i.e. 11.09.2015 and also pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant within 60 days from the date of receiving of this Order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.P No.1 as per Law, in case of failure by the O.P No.1 to comply the Order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 7th day of June, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
