Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

247/2012

A.S.Santhanam, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Standard Chartered Bank, rep. by Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

G.Namberumal Chetty

08 Oct 2016

ORDER

                                                              Complaint presented on  :  02.11.2012

                                                                     Order pronounced on  08.10.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :      PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,            :     MEMBER II

 

SATURDAY THE  08^th   DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.247/2012

 

 

Mr.A.S.Santhanam,

Advocate, Madras,

288, New Addl High Court Chamber,

Madras – 104.

                                                                                 ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

G.Namberumal Chetty & Sons,

Rep., by its owner,                                               (As per order in CMP36/2013

No.151, Audhiappa Naicken Street,                    dated 06/06/2013 carried out

Chennai – 01.                                                         On 18.07.2013) Thursday)

Rep by its Proprietor  Sathyanarayana,

Residing in No:52, Varadha Muthappan Street,

Broad way Chennai – 01.

...Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                   : 19.11.2012

Counsel for Complainant                       : Party in Person

Counsel for  Opposite party                      :  Ms.R.Dhanalakshmi

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant purchased certain provisions in the Opposite Party provision stores on 08.02.2012. Among the provisions purchased one of the item is Tamarind and the same was price  at Rs.200/- per kg  in the price list issued by the Opposite Party for a total sum of Rs.874/-. The Complainant on reaching his house with the purchased provisions his wife and one of his relative informed him that he was cheated by the Opposite Party that the Tamarind price Rs.200/- per kg is high and on the other hand the Tamarind price sold at Amutham Government Stores is only at Rs.80/- per kg . Even in the Thinamalar Daily News Paper Published the price list provisions one kg of Tamarind price is at Rs.90/- on 03.03.2012 and 18.02.2012 and Rs.95/- on 11.02.2012. Therefore the Opposite Party sold the Tamarind for higher price of Rs.200/- than the prevailing market rate is nothing but an unfair trade practice. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to refund the excess Tamarind price collected a sum of Rs.120/- by the Opposite Party and also compensation for Deficiency in Service committed by the Opposite Party and thereby cause mental to him with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant purchased certain items on 8^th Feb.2012. The receipt filed as a document herein would prove that he never purchased any Tamarind in the Opposite Party shop. The Complainant in his Complaint stated in paragraph No.3 that he purchased the Tamarind and the price of the Tamarind is of a sum of Rs.200/- with the Opposite Party shop billed etc., which is vehemently denied and it is categorically stated that the document itself would prove that the Complainant never purchased Tamarind. The other items are hereby admitted. The Opposite Party states that on seeing the price of the Tamarind Rs.200/- and his wife told the Complainant that price of Tamarind was sold at Amutham Government Stores at Rs.80/- and price list was published in the paper is at Rs. 90/- and 95/- is irrelevant in the case. This Opposite Party never sold Tamarind to the Complainant in the bill issued to him and hence this Opposite Party has not committed any unfair trade practice and Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO.1

          According to the Complainant he had purchased provisions from the Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.874/- on 08.02.12012 under Ex.A1 cash bill issued by the Opposite Party and one of the item in the said bill he had purchased 1 kilogram Tamarind at the rate of Rs.200/- per kg and whereas during that time in the Amutham Government Stores and also  the price of the Tamarind published at Dinamalar News Paper is only Rs.80/-, 90/- & 95/- on various dates  and therefore the Opposite Parties sold the Tamarind for excess price on Rs.120/- per kg is unfair trade practice and therefore the Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service.

          5. The Opposite Party would contend that he never sold the Tamarind and also purchased by the Complainant under Ex.A1 and therefore he had not committed unfair trade practice and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

          6. It is in dispute that the Complainant purchased provisions with the Opposite Party on 08.02.2012 for a sum of Rs.874/- under Ex.A1. There is one item sold to the Complainant for a sum of Rs.200/- in Ex.A1. The Complainant would contend that the price of Rs.200/- with regard to selling of Tamarind to him. Whereas the Opposite Party would state that   only Chilly was (கு.மிளகாய்) sold to him for a sum of Rs.200/- and not Tamarind as contented by the Complainant. It is categoric case of the Opposite Party is that he never sold Tamarind to the Complainant for a sum of Rs.200/- per kg and the same was initially  pleaded by the Opposite Party in his written version. Even on perusal of the Ex.A1 bill that the price of Rs.200/-, it has not been written as Tamarind (புளி) and whereas on reading it only shows கு.மிளகாய். Therefore as contended by the Complainant he had not purchased  Tamarind under Ex.A1 and he had purchased only   கு.மிளகாய்  for a sum of Rs.200/- per kg and therefore we hold that the Opposite Party has not committed any unfair trade practice and any Deficiency in Service.

07. POINT NO: 2

          Since the opposite party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in this Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed without cost.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 08^th  day of October 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 09.02.2012                   The VAT cash Receipt issued by the Opposite

                                                    Party to the Complainant

 

Ex.A2 dated 08.02.2012                   Paper Publication about the decrease in price of

                                                    tamarind published in Thinamalar Daily

                                                    Newspaper

 

Ex.A3 dated 11.02.2012                   Price List containing Tamarind price in

                                                    Thinamalar Daily Newspaper

 

Ex.A4 dated 18.02.2012                   -do-

 

Ex.A5 dated 03.03.2012                   -do-

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY:

                                      …… NIL…….                                 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT