Date of Filing:-22.12.2017

Order No. 16                                                                                Dt.- 10.07.2018

FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

Sri Prabin Chettri Ld. Member

The complainant Shri Subhasish Sarkar has filed the present petition of complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein he has stated that, he is in need of a Motorbike coolant (lubricant which helps to keep the engine temperature cool), went to the office of the opposite No. 1.where on asking he was provided with a Motul branded ‘Inugel Expert- Ready to use coolant’ priced at a Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of Rs. 195/- (Rupees One Ninety-Five) only. Complainant on buying the said product offered the MRP Price as printed in the label of the product to the O.P.No.1. But the complainant was provided with the Tax Invoice bearing invoice number: PCSI 103351705030 dated 30.10.2017 showing a total payable amount of Rs. 210/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Ten) only towards such purchase. Complainant after perusing the Tax Invoice, asked the O.P. No.1 to give some proper justification for such illegal and arbitrary charges of the said product, one of the employee of the O.P. No.1arogantly having no regard towards customer satisfaction bluntly replied- “take it or leave it”. However the complainant was in need of the said product and as such compelled to purchase the same on a higher price over the MRP(Maximum Retail Price).

Here the act of the opposite party, arbitrary and illegally to charge any excess amount on the MRP of any product, is unfair trade practice as MRP is Maximum retail Price which actually means inclusive of all takes and charges whatsoever. That under the above circumstances the complainant prays for redressal as per petition of complaint.

The O.P.No.1.(Siliguri Auto Works Private Ltd.) and the proforma O.P.2 (Motul Official Distributor) were constesting  the case by filling a Written Version denying all the allegations made against them contending, inter alia, that the case is not sustainable either on facts or under the Law. There is no cause of action for the present case. The specific case of O.P. No.1 is that if any Motul branded  Inugel Expert –Ready to uses coolant was sold to the complainant by this objector O.P. No.1, obviously Tax Invoice/Cash Memo in respect of such product was issued in favour of the complainant but no such cash invoice is relied by the complainant for purchase of the above branded product. The O.P. No.1 also asserts that the Tax Invoice bearing no. PCSI 103351705030 dated 30.10.2017 was issued by this O.P. No.1 to the purchaser against cash for sale of the particular product no. 36001058, detailed in the said Tax Invoice, but this opposite party does not know whether the invoice as spoken to the above was issued favouring the complainant or any other purchaser of the particular product as there is no provision of obtaining signature of any product against cash payment. The O.P. No.1 repeat that the MRP of the product sold by this O.P. No.1 upon receipts of cash under the said Tax Invoice dated 30.10.2017 is fixed and printed on the label of the product Rs. 210/-.

Thus, the case of the complainant is nothing but the suppression of  truth, the male-fide object being to derive wrongful gain causing wrongful loss to this O.P. No.1 and hence merits no consideration and such complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for the instant complaint from the face of the record, is found to be vexatious/frivolous.

On the other hand Pro-forma O. P. No.2 (Motul Official Distributor) specific stand      is that this Pro-forma defendant carries on business of production and distribution of branded lubricants having its various retailers including s the O.P. No.1 M/S Siliguri Auto Works Pvt. Ltd. and that the Motul Branded “Inugel Expart-Ready to use Coolant” is product of this pro-forma defendant fixing the MRP rate of Rs 195/- as printed on the label of the said product but the parts being no 36001058 as indicated in the Tax Invoice bearing no PCSI 103351705030 dated 30.10.2017 relied by the complainant is not the product of this pro-forma defendant and that the said product was/is absolutely belonging to HPCL and marketed by Bajaj fixing MRP Rs. 210/- as printed on the label of the said product sold under the said invoice as refer to above.

That in the facts and circumstances the present complaint filed by the complainant is found to be frivolous one and is liable to be dismissed against this Pro-forma O.P. and accordingly an exemplary cost and damages may kindly be awarded by declaring the present complaint is a Vexatious one in the interests of justice.

As such they are not involved in committing unfair Trade Practice. So the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and the case is liable to be dismissed as Vexatious and Frivolous.

Considering the rival pleadings of both the parties, the following points have been framed

    POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION :-  

1)  Is the case maintainable in its present form and prayer?

2) Is the O.P. guilty for committing unfair Trade Practice/Business?

3) Is the complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

                        DECISION WITH REASONS :-

During argument both the parties submitted before the Forum that they would not adduce any oral evidence. They also submitted before the Forum that Final Order/Judgement be passed on the basis of the petition of complaint along with documents annexed therein supported by affidavit and the Written Version along with documents annexed therein supported by affidavit treating them as their respective evidence on affidavit. Accordingly, those are treated as the respective evidence on affidavit of both the parties.

POINT NO. 1. :- Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. No.1 pointed that the complainant motive is to harass and  malign the O.P. No.1 with object to derive wrongful gain causing wrongful loss to the O.P. No.1 as such the instant compliant is not maintainable being based on false-hood, and hence merits no consideration.

On the other hand complainant’s document as annexure 1.Xerox Copy of Invoice filed along with the petition of complaint, on perusing the same documents we find that the complainant is a consumer of the O.P. No.1 as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the present case is maintainable. So, we must see whether there was/is any unfair Trade Practice Committed by the O.P. or not. Accordingly this point is decided in favour of the complainant.

POINT NO. 2&3:- The Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. No.1 boldly assets that the Tax Invoice bearing No. PCSI 103351705030 dated 30.10.2017 was issued by the O.P. No.1 to the purchaser against cash for sale of the particular product no. 36001058 detailed in the said Tax Invoice by this O.P. No.1. But does not know whether the Invoice as spoken to the above was issued favouring the complainant or any other purchaser of the particular product as there is no provision of obtaining signature of the purchaser on the Tax Invoice in a case of sale of any product against cash payment.

 On perusal of the document as annexure 1 (Tax Invoice) filed by the O.P. No.1 we did’nt find customer’s signature. While on the other hand complainant has also filed the document as annexure 1. (Tax Invoices) we find there is a complainant’s signature. But the fact is related with the product and the price, so we are not discussing on the point of authenticity of the customer’s signature, rather to find out whether there is any unfair Trade Practice on the part of the O.P. No.1.

Here, the main issue regarding the product and the price is vital to see or find out whether  the O.P. No.1 is guilty for committing unfair trade practice/business by receiving excess amount of the MRP. On perusal of the documents filed by both the parties as Tax Invoice, we find that description of the product in Invoice as “Accessory Coolant for Radiator/87/141090 and the M.R.P. is Rs.210/- in both the Invoice. Now the Question      is, whether the complainant purchased the product shown in Annexure 2 & 3 or whether the product mentioned by the O.P. in their W.V.

To find out the case of the complainant as per petition of complaint, that the complainant was provided with a Motul branded ‘Inugel Expert Ready to use Coolant’ whose price was printed as Rs. 195/- only but the O.P. No.1 has illegally and arbitrary hand over the Tax Invoice bearing invoice number: PCSI 103351705030 dated 30.10.2017 showing a total payable amount of Rs. 210/- only towards such purchase. The Complainant compelled to purchase the same on a higher price over the M.R.P.

Complainant filed some documents to prove his case regarding the unfair Trade Practice by the O.P. No.1 which on perusal we are not satisfied that the complainant was illegally arbitrary force to take the product in a higher price over the M.R.P. There is no any such averment or any supporting documents to establish the case of the complaint which we can rely and to consider the case of the complainant’s plaint as well as the related documents. The Question in our mind is striking that, if the O.P. No.1 has illegally or arbitrary force the complainant to pay more than the M.R.P. of the product and the differentiate of the product was/is clearly shown in the Tax Invoice filed by both the parties, than why the complainant did’not protest by any written complaint, or why the complainant did’nt feel comfort to return back the product instantly as it is not the case of any emergency life saving medicine /product to the complainant. So, the complainant can easily refuse the product as the product and the price is mismatching to satisfied himself.

            On the other hand, according to the O.P. they sold accessory coolant for radiator to the complainant which is the product of Bajaj Company named Koolex being no ‘36001058’ and they did’nt sale any product named  “Motul”. From the Tax Invoice filed by the complainant himself we find, that he purchased accessory coolant for radiator, the number of the said product in ‘36001058’from the document filed by the O.P., we find that the number of the Bajaj Product named “Koolex” tally with the number mentioned in the Tax Invoice. So, it is clear to us that, the complainant purchased accessory coolant for radiator of Bajaj product named “Koolex” and not “Motul”. From the document filed by the O.P. we find that the M.R.P. of Bajaj “Koolex” is Rs. 210/-. So, the complainant paid the M.R.P. only amounting to Rs. 210/- no excess amount has been charged by the O.P. from the complainant.

Therefore, we did’nt find any illegal or arbitrary attitude of the O.P.No.1 finding out for guilty for committing unfair Trade Practice. This point is thus decided against the complainant.

From the discussions made above and in the light of our observations, we have already found that the O.P. No.1 is not guilty for committing unfair Trade Practice/Business accordingly the complainant is not entitled to get relief in this case.

In our opinion there is no any ill intention of the complainant to file this case, so we decline to say that this case is vexatious or frivolous.

All the points are thus disposed of.

As a result the case fails.

.  Hence, it is

                                     O R  D  E  R  E  D  :-

That the Consumer Case 65/2017 be and same is dismissed on contest against the O.P. No1 (Siliguri Auto Works Pvt. Ltd) and Pro-forma O.P. No.2 (Motul Official Distributor).

Let the original documents, if any filed by the party, be returned on proper receipt.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost on proper acknowledgement or be sent by speed post in terms of Rule 5(10) of West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules 1987.