Delhi

East Delhi

CC/131/2015

BINITA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONU TOYS - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 131/15

 

Ms. Binita Shahi

B-83, Sector-36

Noida - 201301, UP                                                                      ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

M/s. Sonu Toys (Games, Toys & Sports Goods)

G-5, Subhash Chowk

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092                                                    ….Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 25.03.2015

Judgment Reserved for : 14.07.2016

Judgment Passed on : 15.07.2016

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Ms. Binita Shahi has filed a complaint against M/s. Sonu Toys, praying for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- on account of harassment, mental pain, agony and inconvenience and Rs. 10,000/-  as litigation cost.

2.        The facts in brief are that Ms. Binita Shahi (Complainant) purchased ten toys from M/s. Sonu Toys (OP) for a sum of Rs. 600/-.  It has been stated that though MRP was Rs. 20.8 written on the package, but OP charged a sum of Rs. 60/- per toy.  The complainant got the bill for a sum of Rs. 630/- as 5% extra was charged making a total of Rs. 630/- for 10 toys.  Thus, it has been stated that under the rules of statute overcharging was an offence and the practice of OP was under the category of the restricted trade practices, which was prohibited under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Hence, she has prayed that OP may be directed not to sell any toys and other sports goods at more than the maximum retail price mentioned on the packaging.  She has also prayed for compensation for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on account of harassment, mental pain, agony and inconvenience and        Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

In the written statement, M/s. Sonu Toys (OP) has taken various objections.  It has been stated that the complainant herself has put her name on the cash bill and has fabricated the evidence.  It has been stated that MRP on the toy was Rs. 80/- and not Rs. 60/- which was sold on discounted price of Rs. 63/- inclusive vat.  Other pleas have also been denied. 

           

 

In the Replication, the complainant has controverted the pleas taken in the written statement and have reasserted her pleas in the complainant. 

3.        In support of her case, the complainant has deposed on affidavit.  She has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  She has got exhibited copy of toy’s packaging as Exhibit-I and original invoice as Annexure -II. 

In defence, OP has examined Shri Deepak Dhingra, Proprietor of M/s. Sonu Toys who has deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts, which have been stated in the written statement.  He has got exhibited receipt as annexure-RW/A in respect of product purchased by the complainant stated to be fishing toy helicopter and not any fishing game.  He has also got exhibited the original receipt as annexure-RW/B.  He has also placed on record the photographs of the product as annexure RW/C, RW/D and  RW/E.

4.        We have heard the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP.  It has been argued on behalf of OP that the complainant has fabricated the receipt of the product, which was sold to her.  On the other hand, complainant has argued that it was the only receipt, which was issued by the OP.  She has not fabricated the receipt as such.  This is the sole argument,  which has been advanced on behalf of both the parties. 

To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the OP and complainant, a look has to be made to the documents on record.  If a look is made to bill, which has been marked as annexure-2 in the testimony of the complainant and RW/A in the testimony of OP, it is noticed that there has been overwriting on the date though in the original memo (annexure-RW/B), the bill is of dated 10.01.2015, whereas in the overwritten bill annexure RW/A as well as annexure-2, the date has been over-written as 31.01.2015.  Further, the over-written bill has the name of Binita Shahi, whereas the original bill of dated 10.01.2015 does not contain the name of the complainant.   When there has been over-writing in the original bill and the name of the complainant has been put, though the same was not in the original bill, it creates doubts in the story put by the complainant.  That being so, the testimony of the complainant cannot be relied upon to show that OP was indulging in restrictive trade practice.  It is the fundamental principal of law that one should come to the court/forum with clean hands.  Under these circumstances, the complaint made by the complainant cannot be said to be proved, therefore, the same deserves dismissal. 

5.        In view of the above, we are of the opinion that OP was not indulging in any restrictive trade practice.  Thus, she has failed to prove her complaint.  Therefore, the same is dismissed.    

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

         (DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                                           (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member                 

 

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

President