Haryana

StateCommission

A/667/2015

SUNIL MITTAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUBHASH CHAND ASHOK KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

25 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.667 of 2015

Date of Institution: 11.08.2015

Date of Decision: 25.01.2016

 

Sunil Mittal S/o Shri Narender Kumar, R/o H.No.28, Nishant Bagh-A, Behind B.D., Flour Mill, Ambala Cantt. Haryana.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

M/s Subhash Chand Ashok Kumar, 21-22,  Rai Market, Near Minerva Complex, Ambala Cantt.

         …..Respondent

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Sunil Mittal appellant in person.

                   Mr. Rajinder Singhal, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

ORDER

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI MEMBER:

 

        Sunil Mittal complainant is in appeal against the order dated 28.07.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’) Ambala, whereby his complaint against M/s Subhash Chand Ashok Kumar-O.P. has been dismissed.

2.     In brief, the complainant purchased a Sansui 32’ LED TV, Model Number 324-B on 28.11.2014 for a sum of Rs.22,500/- vide bill No.34392 dated 28.11.2014.  After few days, complainant came to know that the same LED TV was available in the market for a sum of
Rs.17,000/- only.  In this regard, complainant got a quotation from M/s Arvind Electricals and Electronics, Ambala Cantt and thereafter asked to O.P. to refund Rs.5500/-, which amount they had charged in excess from him. When the O.P. refused to refund the excess amount, a legal notice dated 11.12.2014 was got served upon the O.P. to which the O.P. replied in the negative.  The complainant thereupon approached the District Forum alleging unfair trade practice against the O.Ps.

3.     In their reply, the O.P. pleaded that the complainant had purchased the said LED TV for a sum of Rs.22,500/- at a Dealer Price against the company price list of Rs.23490/- alongwith a Samsung Guru Mobile worth Rs.1200/- as a gift. They further denied that the product was available in the market for Rs.17,000/-.  The learned District Forum found merit in the stand taken by the O.P., dismissed the complaint being devoid of any legal force.

4.     Before us, the complainant has repeated his allegation that the respondent had sold LED for a sum of Rs.22,500/-, whereas the market price of the same was Rs.17,000/- and that the learned District Forum has not considered this aspect of the matter, while dismissing his complaint.

5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.  The O.P. has produced documentary evidence to support his plea that the Dealer Price against the company price list was Rs.23490/-, whereas they had charged only Rs.22500/- from the complainant and had also given him a Samsung Guru Mobile worth Rs.1200/- as a gift.  Therefore, there was no unfair trade practice on their part.

6.     We are satisfied with the evidence produced by the O.P. and do not find any proof of unfair trade practice alleged by the complainant. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of force.

 

 

January 25th, 2016      Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                   Member                                                Judicial Member                                              Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.