O  R  D  E  R

(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)

1          Complaining unfair trade practice the complainant sought stoppage of sales by the 1^st opposite party until they implement their own publicized clear price tag attached to their items, to refund Rs.406/- excess amount collected deceptively, Rs.5,000/-  for mental agony, Rs. 600/- for charges of notice, Rs. 1,000/- costs of the petition and Rs. 3,000/- for engaging advocate.

2          The allegations in the complaint in brief are that being lured by vide publicity, the complainant visited the 1^st opposite party shop intending to purchase bracelet worth about Rs. 10,000/-, He took one of the items shown by the sales man who quoted price at Rs.8,000/- when asked him to prepare the bill for the said item then he informed him the price was Rs. 11,000/- and by mistake he quoted at Rs. 8,000/-.  He was shocked for the same and when remined salesman their publicity of clear price tag he informed him the system was observed only for one week after opening and now it is replaced with spot valuation and requested him to not to complain against him to the management.  The complainant went out of the show room and the matter was discussed with his wife and later decided to buy the said item as there was not much time for ensuing function.  So his wife again approached the 1^st opposite party for item with Rs. 11,000/-.  The bill was prepared for Rs. 11,811/-.  Then she called him and informed the said fact.  Again when complainant questioned the salesman again he pleaded mistake on his part and told him that the counter staff priced it correctly.  He paid the bill amount and left the place. He was given bill showing the net amount Rs.11,612/- and bill was prepared for Rs. 11,811/-. After showing some unknown deductions adding VAT they have shown net amount Rs. 11,612/- but on bill correct calculation with above data, the actual price sale is at Rs. 11,495/- but not Rs.11,811/-.  After collecting the excess amount of Rs. 406/- the 1^st opposite party lent some unknown discount of Rs. 313.97 ps. and added 114.97 as VAT and arrived at Rs.11,612/-.

3          Then he issued notice to both the opposite parties. The 1^st opposite part having received the same issued interim reply and sought one month time to tender a full reply but no such reply was given.  Thus he filed the present complaint.

4          The 2^nd opposite party remained exparte and 1^st opposite party filed its written version denying the material allegations in the complaint and further according to them, the salesman showed the complainant some designs who selected two designs, one is Rs. 8,000/-  and other is Rs.11,000/-.  But the complainant had mistaken bracelet of Rs.11,000/- for bracelet of Rs. 8,000/-.  When questioned they informed him that 2.45 grams is Rs. 8,000/- and 3.48 grams is Rs. 11,000/-.  The complainant left the place not satisfying with designs.  Later after one hour wife of the complainant came to their show room and after thoroughly satisfied with the rate and article, the complainant and his wife purchased the same.

5          It is also their case that the value of the gold will never be the same on any given date.  The rate of the gold depends upon many factors. Only when the customer is satisfied he can purchase the same and there is every chance of bargaining basing on the number of articles and value of the same and it is the prerogative of the 1^st opposite party to give any concession.  It is also their plea that even if at all the complainant has any grievance he ought to have approached monopoly restrictive trade practice but not this Forum.  Thus urging they sought dismissal of the complaint.

6          Now the points for determination are:

            1.  Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant?

            2.  If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts sought by him in the complaint?

7 Point No.1:            To prove their respective contentions both the complainant and 1^st opposite party filed their respective proof affidavits.  The complainant exhibited three documents which are the bill given by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant, office copy of the lawyer’s notice and the interim reply given by the 1^st opposite party.

8.         It is an admitted fact the complainant purchased a gold bracelet from the 1^st opposite party for which they issued Ex.A1.  The actual price of the bracelet is quoted as Rs.11,811/- and later deducted an amount of Rs. 313.97 ps and added value added tax of 114.97 ps and arrived at grand total of Rs. 11,612/-.

9          It is the grievance of the complainant the 1^st opposite party has  given vide publicity about their clear price tag for items sold by them and lured by the same when he visited shop of the 1^st opposite party a wanted to purchase bracelet,  the salesman quoted wrong amount twice.  As no sufficient time he purchased the article and paid the amount as evidence by Ex.A1.  The whole of grievance of the complainant seems the price quoted by the shop of the 1^st opposite party is not in consence with the propaganda made by the 1^st opposite party through 2^nd opposite party who proclaimed that every item will be tagged with clear price tag.  Though such contention is raised no material is produced by the complainant that in fact the 1^st opposite party had given such advertisement.  It is common knowledge the rate of the gold will not be the same on any given date as correctly pointed out by the 1^st opposite party.  Though according to complainant the price was wrongly quoted twice by the salesman of 1^st opposite party still he purchased the article.  Thus it is not as if he was completely kept in dark with regard to the price of the items and or else compelled into purchase the said item at rate quoted by salesman.  In this regard as seen from the contention of the 1^st opposite party if at all, the complainant has got any grievance he can as well approach Monopoly and trade restrictive practice Forum to ventilate his grievance.  An Authority is created to redress the grievance of this nature, the complainant could have approached the said Authority.  Hence under these circumstances I do not see force in the contention of the complainant.  Hence this point is answered against the complainant.

10        Point No.2:               In view of the finding rendered under point No.1 the complainant is not entitled any amount.  Thus this point is also answered accordingly.

11                    In the result, the complaint is dismissed in the circumstances without costs.

            Dictation taken by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 19^th day of January, 2015

Sd/- xxxxx                                                                                                             Sd/- xxxxx

MEMBER                                                                                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For complainant: 

PW1:  Sri Kilim Raja Raja Narendra Rama Raja Sekhara Reddy [complainant

For opposite parties : 

RW1:  Sri Ramaswamy Pitchaia, Manager of M/s. Kalyan Jewellers [OP1] 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For complainant:-

Ex. A1                        17.12.2012    Original bill issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant

Ex.A2                         19.12.2012    Office copy of the lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties [original]

Ex.A3                         26.12.2012    Interim reply issued by the 1^st opposite party to the Complainant [original]

For opposite parties:         NIL

Sd/- xxxxx                                                                                                        Sd/- xxxxx

MEMBER                                                                                                         PRESIDENT