Devi Sengupta, Member.

            The case  of the Complainant in a nut shell is that the complainant purchased a 500 G.B. External Go Flex SEAGATF Hard Drive from the shop of the op on 24.12.11 at a consideration price of Rs5096/- (Rupees Five Thousand Ninety Six) only vide invoice no. SC/11 – 12/ 11329. On good faith & belief upon the op, the complainant purchased the said article believing that the purchased article is  genuine and reasonable . The fact is that soon after purchase the complainant came to know that the maximum retail price of the article is Rs.4500/- and the op has taken extra amount of Rs596/- from the complainant . After knowing the fact the complainant has started to collect the Quotation from the various shops of the electronic goods. The complainant states that thereafter complainant made a telephonic call to the op and the op admitted the price of the  said item to be Rs.1500/- less than the consideration amount of Rs.5096/- and at the time of conversation the op shop expressed his desire to return the excess amount to  the complainant.  The complainant states and alleges that as per the word of the op the complainant went to collect the excess amount from the op shop and the op shop refused to return the excess amount of Rs.1500/- .

             The op shop on various pretext tries to adjust the Rs.1500/-and requested the complainant to take some other goods and finally the op shop stated that no liquid cash shall be refunded to the complainant. Being aggrieved the complaint states that the complainant moved the entire matter to the Assistant Director Consumer Affairs  and Fair Business  Practice Dept. where the complainant is directed to move the matter before this Forum. The complainant further alleges that the complainat sent a letter to the op shop to settle the entire matter amicably. But op shop did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.

       By filing Written Version the op denied the allegations leveled against them  and averred that the op is not the manufacturer of the article sold  and he runs his shop for his livelihood and he purchased the article from Inforcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Op alleges that higher price having knowledge of lesser price the complainant purchased the article from the Op.

        The op alleges that on 24.12.11 the complainant purchased the article on the price quoted by the op and did not protest that why op was taking higher price of the article, that the price quoted by the different shop and after lapse of 25 days due to ill and motivated mind of the complainant has filed the petition before  the Forum and prays before the Forum to dismiss and reject the case with cost.

Points for Drcisions.

       1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P ?

       2.  Whether the case is maintainable or not.

       3.  Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?

DECISION WITH REASONS :

Point no. 1 to 3.    All the issues are taken together for discussion as those are inter linked with each other, for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

            It appears from the Written argument of the complainant that it is the unfair trade practice of the op as the MRP of the article sold by the complainant is Rs.4500/- but the op knowingly and malafidely made the complainant belief that the cost of the said article is Rs5096/-( Rs.4900+4% vat i.e. Rs.196/-)

          And the op took extra amount more that real MRP of the said article. So unfair trade practice is there which tantamount to deficiency of service. The complainant argued that he filed all the quotations before the Ld. Forum to prove his bonafideness and to showed the market price of the said article at that tenure. The complainant  further argued that to prove his case he has filed all relevant documents in original. Complainant argued that the case is maintainable as the op runs his business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum and the the claim of the complainant within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.

               Regarding the claim of the complainant, the complain in his written argument states that he is entitled to get relief.

     The op in Written version denies and disputes the content vehemently. Op argued that if the prior price of the article known to the complainant prior to purchase why he purchased the article at the price of Rs.5096/- . Op argued that he did not cheat the complainant and did not make an excess profit than the permissible limit and denied the deficiency on the part of the op and argued that only to harass the op the complainant filed this case .and there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the op.

             In view of the above facts and circumstances, we have carefully considered the case of both the parties documents and evidence , we are in the opinion that complainant has proved his case and prayer of the complainant can be granted in his favour.

                                                Hence it is ordered

            That the case of the complainant be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.                                              

 OP is directed to pay Rs.596/- to the complainant for excess amount taken by the op. for purchase of article.

 Op is further directed to pay Rs.5000/- for unfair trade practice to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.

  Op is also directed to pay Rs.3000/- to the  Consumer Legal Aid Account for unfair trade practice within 45 days from the date of the order.

            Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.

    Dictated and corrected by D.Sengupta,Member.