MR. BIBEKANANDA DAS, MEMBER:-
This C.C.Case No. 28/2023 has been filed U/s-35 of C.P.Act, 2019 seeking following relief:-
Honbl’e Commission may direct the Ops to refund excess amount Rs. 1800/- taken from Op No.1 mentioned in MRP and also award to sum of Rs. 40,000/- for mental agony, harassment & litigation expenses by Complainant.
Brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that:-
“ Complainant has purchased from the Op No.1 one part of “Jaquar” company namely “Single Piece WC with PP Soft Close Seat cover, Hinges, Dual Flush Cistern Fitting, Fixing Accessories Size-395 X 665MM, P TRAP-180 MM” for an amount of Rs. 12,000/-. The Op No.1 granted cash memo for Rs. 12,000/- granted on dt. 14.01.2023. The Op No.1 has given the purchase commodity in a packaged wherein the MRP (per price) is mentioned as Rs. 10,200/- (inclusive all taxes). The Op No.1 is a trader provided the package as per Sec-26(B) of the act but charged more price than the price mentioned in the package of the commodity provided by the Op No.1. The Complainant as a consumer has got a consumer right as per Sec-2(9)(11) of the act to protest himself from the unfair trade practices. The package disclosed as Rs. 10,200/- but the cash memo/purchase receipt provided by the Op No.1 show the price as Rs. 12,000/- and the Op No.1 took the same amount from the Complainant. This act of the Op No.1 can be treated as unfair trade of practice U/s 2(47) (i) of the Acts.
Ld. Counsel for Op No.1 has filed his written version stating as under:-
“ The Complainant is not a consumer U/s-2(1)(d) of the act and hence he cannot maintain the case and the case is liable to be dismissed with cost. The facts of the case are that Sillu Kumar Singh, Proprietor of SK Enterprises and having its business premises at Kantapara Bazaar, Rajkanika, Kendrapara and dealing with business since long. The Complainant has purchased single piece W.C with P.P. soft seat cover Hinges, Dual Flush cistern fitting, fixing accessories size 395x665mm P trap-180mm of Jaquar Company for an amount of Rs. 12,000/- after discount on dt. 14.01.23 including GST. The price prevailing at that time, the Complainant without any objection paid the amount and also got his purchased article as stated above. It is humbly submitted that the allegation of the complainant that the Op No.1 has given the purchase commodity in a packaged where in MRP was mentioned as Rs. 10,200/- is false and fabricated. It is worthwhile to be mentioned here that the complainant has purchased the commodity in the year 2023 and price of the commodity was Rs. 12,000/- but not Rs. 10,200/-. It is worthwhile to mentioned that other persons of the locality have also purchased the aforesaid commodity from the Op No.1 with the price of Rs. 12,000/- after discount and nobody ever objected. It is humbly submitted that the price by the Complainant is not arbitrary. It is further submitted the price of the commodity was Rs. 10,200/- and the price was enhanced in the year 2022 and prevailing till the date when the Complainant purchase the commodity. The Op No.1 has got good name and fame in the locality and in order to define his business in the locality the complainant has filed the instant case basing upon some false and fabricated grounds. In fact the Complainant is not a consumer as defined under the act.
The Op No.2 & 3 are the manufacturer & Dealer but did not came to appear and give their explanation for which we are in dark to some extent and not given proper assistance to adjudicate the dispute.
The claim of the Complainant is that, the price mentioned in the cover of the product is of Rs. 10,200/- but the Op No.1 has charged Rs. 12,000/-. So, it is the claim of the Complainant that such action of Op No.1 by claiming excess charge than the printed price (MRP) of the product amounts to cheating and unfair trade practice. The contention of the Op No.1 is that the Complainant has purchased the product and obtained the receipt but subsequently the Complainant managed to procure cover containing the product of higher price and has filed the frivolous C.C. before this Commission. The Complainant has clarified that he was interested in purchasing the product and its quality as Jaquar is having a good reputation in field of sanitary product and he has not compared the amount claimed by the Ops in the bill and the price mentioned in the product cover and after fitting of product while he wants through the printed price (MRP) mentioned in the cover he objected before Op No.1 and requested to refund the excess amount and being failure in his attempt in getting back the amount, the Complainant constrained to approach this Commission seeking the relief mentioned above.
Taking into consideration of the fact of both the parties, we are of the opinion that nobody will arrange a cover of a product to file a consumer complaint for such a few amount.
We therefore held that Op No.1 has committed unfair trade practice by claiming excess price than the printed price(MRP) which amounts to unfair trade practice as stipulated U/s-2(47) of C.P.Act, 2019.
We therefore direct the Op No.1 to refund the excess price i.e 1800/- and we also award Rs. 3000/- for mental agony and Rs. 2000/- towards cost of litigation which shall be paid by Op No.1 to Complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Op No.2 & 3 (the manufacture & Dealer) for not giving due regard to notice of this Commission and taking this Commission very lightly, we impose cost of Rs. 2000/- upon each OP No.2 & 3 which shall be paid by Op No.2 & 3 to the Complainant within 45 days. Send copy to Op No.2 & 3 for compliance of the order.
With the aforesaid observation & direction the C.C.Case No. 28/2023 is allowed & accordingly disposed off.
Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.
Pronounced in the open Commission, on this the 5th day of June,2024
I, agree,
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
