Karnataka

Gadag

CC/32/2015

V.N.Manochar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Siddhi Vinayak Paints - Opp.Party(s)

In-person

27 Aug 2016

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OPs. 

2.  The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant No.1 is the father of Complainant No.2 they had purchased paint for the painting of their house ICI Dulux Wall Care 4 X 5 KGs, super coat exterior primer 20 X 2 liters ICI Duvel Acrylic Primer 20 X 1 liter, Nippon Vinilix washable interior emulsion 20 X 1 liter, metal primer, wood primer, thinner and sand paper. The OP No.1 estimated Rs.16,014/- the Complainant purchased the same and paid Rs.15,000/- on 10.06.2015. On 18.09.2015 OP asked the Complainant to clear the balance outstanding of Rs.1,567/- the Complainant started verifying of the prices and found that OP No.1 had manipulated the MRP by scratching on it and found that the OP No.1 had charged above a MRP and the Complainant had prayed to take the strict action against the OP for manipulation of MRP, To Order the OP to payback the excess amount charged which amounts to Rs.200/- and a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- against harassment and mental agony, cost may be awarded and other relief as the Forum deems fit.

3.      The Forum registered the Complaint and notices were issued to OPs. The OP No.1 was present before the Forum and his counsel filed the Vakalat. The Advocate Sri.P.S.Dharmayat filed Memo of Appearance on behalf of OP No.2, but both the Ops have not filed the Version. 

4.      On the back ground of the above said pleadings, the Complainant No.2 himself examined before this Forum as CW-1 and produced 04 documents. They are:

 

1) EX C1 Estimate cum Cash Bill,

2)  EX C2 Cash Bill,

3) EX C3 and C4 Containers.

4) Unmark document – Price list of a company

5.      On the basis of above said pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:   

1.   2.   3.	Whether the Complainant proves that the OPs have made untrade practice?   Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief as sought?   What Order?

        Our Answer to the above Points are:-

Point No.1 – Affirmative,

Point No.2 – Partly Affirmative,

Point No.3 – As per the final order.

                

R E A S O N S

 6.  POINT NO.1 and 2:  As both points are inter related hence taken together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of fact, evidence. On perusal of pleading, evidence coupled with the documents on record with respective parties. It is the case of the Complainant that the OP had charged over MRP for the paints purchased by the Complainant No.1 and 2.

 

   7.  The Complainant No.1 is the father of Complainant No.2, they had purchased the paint ICI Dulux Wall Care 4 X 5 KGs, super coat exterior primer 20 X 2 liters ICI Duvel Acrylic Primer 20 X 1 liter, Nippon Vinilix washable interior emulsion 20 X 1 liter, metal primer, wood primer, thinner and sand paper. The OP being the retailer having his outlet in Gadag estimated the above product for Rs.16,014/- as alleged by the Complainant. The product had been charged over MRP. The document on record produced by the Complainant, the Cash Bill marked as EX C2 clearly speaks that OP had charged excess amount over MRP. In support of this, the price list of the Manufacturer of the product has been produced for the perusal of the case.

 

     8.   The Complainant has also produced the containers of the paint, To which the OP had supplied to the Complainant. We observed that OP had manipulated the MRP printed on a container. Hence, we are in view that the OP is practicing an unfair trade, since the Complainant is liable to receive an amount of Rs.200/- charged excess for the product purchased and Rs.1,000/- towards untrade practice and Rs.500/- towards the litigation charges. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in affirmative and Point No.2 is in partly affirmative.

 

9.   POINT NO.3:   For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass a following:  

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is partly allowed.
2. The OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.200/- towards excess charged for the product purchased from the Complainant. Further, OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards untrade practice and Rs.500/- towards litigation charges.
3. The OP No.1 is directed to comply this Order within a period of 30 days, failing which OP No.1 has to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the excess amount (Rs.200/-), till realization.
4. The Departmental of Weights and Measures is directed to visit the OP Shop and investigate and submit a report to the Forum within 15 days.
5. Claim against OP No.2 is hereby dismissed.
6. Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 27^th day of August, 2016).

 

 Member                                        President