Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/37/2014

S.Jeyaraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Propreitor,Pazhamudhir SuperMarket - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

22 Jan 2015

ORDER

 

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :  THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                           PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                    TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                               MEMBER                                                                                   

F.A.NO.37/2014

(Against the order in CC.No.379/2012, dated 23.10.2013 on the file of DCDRF, Coimbatore)

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF JANUARY 2015

S.Jayaraman,

S/o.Shanmuganadar,

6/125, 3^rd Street,

P.M.Samy Colony,                                            Appellant / Complainant

R.S.Puram,                                                             In person

Coimbatore 641 002.

-vs-

 

The Manager / Administrator,

Pazhamudhir Super Market,                               M.Uma Shankar

41, Arts College Road,                                      Counsel for Respondent/ Opp.party

Coimbatore 641 018.

          The appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint.  Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying for to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.379/2012, dated 23.10.2013.     

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 23.12.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The unsuccessful complainant party in person is the appellant.

2.       The complainant purchased 5 Chandrika brand soap on 26.07.2012 from the opposite party for which MRP is fixed for Rs.80/- and a concession of Rs.5/- was given as per purchase in a pack containing 5 soaps.  But the opposite party collected Rs.79/- by collecting excess of Rs.4/- and thereby the complainant sent a notice to the opposite party by registered post and thereafter on 4.8.2012 some persons from the opposite party’s shop came and informing that due to appointment of student trainees in the shop for sale the mistake was happened and gave Rs.22/- in a cover with a letter without mentioning the amount sent, but mentioning that due to the college student engaged for the purpose of their educational expenses as well as a letter signed without mentioning the post of the person who had sent the letter and thereby that it was not refunded with good intention in a respectful manner the complainant returned the amount by way of 22 nos of Cadburys Éclairs Chocolate which were received in lieu of changes in cash from the opposite party along with a letter claiming a sum of Rs.41/- and thereby alleging there was unfair trade practice and deficiency of service claiming a refund of Rs.41/- and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.1000/- as costs and Rs.3/- to stop the practice of giving chocolates for the return of cash in coins of Rs.1, 2 etc., towards refund of balance amount.

3.       The opposite party denying the allegations contended that and after having discussions with the complainant as requested by him for the collection of excess amount of Rs.4/- a sum of Rs.41/- was given by way of DD dated 15.8.2012 and the matter was settled and thereby it is not maintainable now that the complainant claiming excess amount as compensation by filing this complaint which is to be dismissed.

4.       The District Forum on the basis of both sides materials and after an enquiry considering the materials placed before it by accepting the contentions of the opposite party came to the proper conclusion that there was no deficiency of service on the side of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and dismissed the complaint.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the appellant / complainant party in person filed this appeal contended that the opposite party behaved in such a way by sending the amount in a careless manner disturbing his routine work in his house by making unnecessary using of calling bell and without giving the amount in a respectable way and the letter was not sent by proper person and having purchased the soaps from the “Pazhamudir Super Market” and the letter was given by “Pazhamudir Nilayam” and some other persons signed in a false manner and thereby once again he returned that amount of Rs.22/- by including subsequent expenses also claimed Rs.41/- and thereby for the deficiency and unfair trade practice like giving chocolates for the repayment of balance amount for the purchase of soaps instead of cash are all would amount to unfair trade practice and thereby the complaint is to be allowed by setting aside the order of the District Forum.

6.       We have heard both sides arguments and including the arguments of the complainant party in person and perused the written submission made by him in this regard.  It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant purchased one pack Chandrika Soap containing 5 Chandrika soaps for the fixed price of Rs.75/- by paying excess amount of Rs.4/- against the MRP of Rs.80/- for which a concession of Rs.5/- given by the company and the opposite party inadvertently collected Rs.79/-.  Hence when the excess collection claim of Rs.4/- was made along with other expenses like To and Fro bus fare Rs.4/- each and cover, paper charges etc when it was refunded that the complainant alleged that it was not respectfully handed over to him but it was handed over in a disgraceful manner while handing over the cover a coin of Rs.2/- fallen down which was not informed that the cover is containing a coin and also not satisfied with a reply letter stating that due to appointment of persons who were college students engaged as sales persons for their educational expenses purpose it was happened and thereby praying for excuse and not satisfied with the same the complainant once again sent the amount back claiming further amount by way of courier charges etc in all for Rs.41/- to be sent by way of Money order or by DD which was also complied by the opposite party by sending a DD for Rs.41/- dated 13.8.2012 which was received by the complainant and not denied and in those circumstances these are all proved by way of documents under Ex.A1 to A4 the letter by the opposite party stating that the lapses how it was happened and in Ex.A6 and A9 also in the reply stating that the Demand Draft for Rs.41/- sent and mentioning that they are feeling sorry for the mistake and in future steps will be taken to avoid such mistakes and it was signed on behalf of the owner for Pazhamudir Nilayam.  From the averments of the complainant it is seen that the opposite parties having Pazhamudir Super Market and also Pazhamudir Nilayam for which the owner being one and the same person on behalf of whom the letters along with money were sent to the complainant which were not satisfied the complainant and the complainant expects that the owner himself should come and response to his grievance which we cannot direct the same since the opposite party has already settled the disputes to the complainant for the collection of excess payment of Rs.4/- they have sent Rs.41/- by way of DD for which also certainly they would have spent DD charges to the bank and also regretted for the mistake committed for the excess collection that too by the trainees / sales men who are said to be the college students given job for the purpose of their educational expenses.   In those circumstances we find no error or infirmity in the finding of the District Forum in this regard and the appeal is having no merits and liable to be dismissed and accordingly

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in CC.No.379/2012, dated 23.10.2013.

          No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                                      A.K.ANNAMALAI

     MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

INDEX; YES/NO

VL/D; PJM/CONSUMER