The complaint raised due to non-return of certain amount of advance and also non-issuance of bill for purchasing of some steel grills etc.
The complainant has lodged a complaint u/s 12 of the CP Act, 1986 in regard to his complaint that Narayan Mahanto the manufacturer and supplier of grill has not issued the proper bill in regard to make steel grill the value of which has been claimed as Rs.7,534/-. Moreover, the said OP had fitted some ball and patta on the grill with a higher market price and without consent of the complainant.
The OP appeared before this Forum on 11.5.2018 and verbally stated that no written statement will be filed by him, rather he desired to go on argument before this Forum today. The complainant also agreed to this proposal. The complainant stated to his Forum what had been stated through documents in his written complaint. The complainant had paid Rs.10,000/- to the OP for which he has got grill at the price of Rs.7,534/-. For exorbitant charge for ball and patta. The complainant claimed to refund the balance amount of which he has got refund of Rs.2,566/- through other measures. But, the complainant thinks it less than what more the price of the grill he had paid to the OP. He also claimed the bill though the OP had issued a cash memo bearing No. 36 dt. 12.2.2018. The cash memo does not bear any name of the manufacturer or seller of the grill.
The OP on argument admitted that he had actually received Rs.11,000/- from the complainant and the complainant had been informed of the rate and everything of the grill in advance for the preparing of the grill. The complainant also ordered to make a steel box cot but has not taken the delivery of the same. He had taken back the advance money of the cot, though the cot by forcing with some undue measures which has already been built up. The complainant had denied that he had advanced Rs.11,000/- but admitted that Rs.10,000/-only. Moreover, the OP had taken exorbitant charge over the market price for the grill.
Points for discussion:
- Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
- Whether any unfair trade practice or RTP had followed by the OP?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point Nos. 1 & 2:
As the complainant has proved that he purchased the goods and OP also had not denied it, so the instant complainant is a consumer u/s 2(d) of the CP Act, 1986. The complainant has tried to establish that the OP has taken restrictive trade practice by manipulation of price of the purchase goods and not providing proper bill for the purchase. But from the documents filed by the OP, it is proved that the rate of the goods to be supplied was informed to the complainant earlier before the supplying of the goods in January, 2018, when the complainant came to the OP for placing order of goods. He has also stated in the Forum that he has provided the original cash memo, though the name of his concern is not printed on the cash memo, but he did not deny that he had issued the cash memo. Moreover, the complainant has forcibly taken back the advance amount of Rs.2,566/- The OP had admitted that he had taken advance of Rs.11,000/- against which he had supplied the grill of Rs.7,534/-. So, Rs.900/- is still due from the OP.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that, (1) the cash memo issued by the OP is accepted as bill issued by the OP;
(2) the OP will pay Rs.900/- to the complainant within 7 days from the date of this order.
No litigation cost and compensation amount is allowed. The case succeeds on contest by both the parties on personal appearance.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
