DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Wednesday the 25th day of September 2024
CC.132/2019
Complainant
Prakasan. M,
S/o. Velayudhan,
Mamiyil, Chathothara (HO),
Olavanna. P.O, Kozhikode – 673019
(By Adv. Sri. Luka Joseph)
Opposite Party
The Proprietor,
Kisan Excel Pvt. Ltd,
11/318, Excel House, Court Road,
Calicut – 673032
(By Adv. Sri. Abdusalam and Adv. Sri. T. Firose)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 22/02/2019 the complainant purchased a bag of fertilizer Muriate of Potash from the opposite party. The opposite party collected Rs. 1,000/- for the fertilizer. Rs. 980/- was collected towards the price and Rs. 20/- towards loading charges. The MRP shown in the bag was Rs. 950/-. The opposite party collected amount in excess of MRP.
- Though the opposite party had collected the Aadhaar number of the complainant stating that fertilizer subsidy would come to his bank account, no subsidy is received till date.
- The worker of the opposite party placed the fertilizer bag in a negligent manner on the two wheeler of the complainant, as a result of which, the vehicle had fallen down causing breakage of the rear mirror, mud guard and accelerator cable. He had to spent Rs. 601/- for spare parts and Rs. 500/- as repair charges. Further he was not able to go for work for 4 days and had loss of earning of Rs. 3,200/-. Thus he had a total loss of Rs. 4,301/-. Hence the complaint claiming compensation.
- The opposite party has entered appearance and filed written version denying and disputing all the allegations and claims made against them in the complaint. According to the opposite party, the complaint is not maintainable. The purchase of the fertilizer by the complainant is admitted. The opposite party had not collected any extra amount from the complainant. The MRP collected by the opposite party is Rs. 950/-. Rs. 30/- was collected towards transportation charges and Rs. 20/- was collected by the loading worker as the complainant could not take the bag from the godown and keep it on his two wheeler for transportation. The loading charges were directly paid by the complainant to the loading worker. The complainant is blaming the workers for placing the fertilizer bag on his two wheeler causing damage to the vehicle and such complaint is outside the scope and ambit of the provisions contained in the Consumer Protection Act for granting reliefs. According to the opposite party, the complaint is an experimental one and is liable to be dismissed.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are; 1) Whether there was any unfair trade and business practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?
2) Reliefs and costs.
- Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1to A3 on the side of the complainant. RW1 was examined on the side of the opposite party.
- We heard both sides.
- Point No 1: Three allegations are raised against the opposite party by the complainant. The first allegation is that the opposite party had collected extra amount of Rs. 50/- from him illegally for a bag of Muriate of Potash, the market price of which is only Rs. 950/-. The second allegation is that the subsidy due to him for the fertilizer was not provided to him. The third allegation is that the workers of the opposite party establishment placed the fertilizer bag in a negligent manner on his two wheeler, as a result of which, the two wheeler had fallen down causing breakage of rear mirror, mud guard and accelerator cable.
- In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the invoice dated 22/02/2019, Ext A2 is the photo of the fertilizer bag and Ext A3 is the copy of the retail invoice dated 23/02/2019 issued by Omega Auto Spares.
- The opposite party was examined as RW1 and he has filed proof affidavit and deposed supporting and reiterating the contentions in the written version.
- On a careful consideration and scrutiny of the evidence in hand, we are of the view that the first grievance of the complainant regarding collection of extra amount is genuine. It is admitted that the market price of IPL-potash 50kg is Rs. 950/- including SGST and CGST. This is further evidenced by Exts A1 and A2 documents. Admittedly, in addition to the MRP of Rs. 950/-, Rs. 30/- was collected towards transportation charges and Rs. 20/- as charges of loading worker. However, Ext A1 invoice is for Rs. 980/- only which includes transportation charges of Rs. 30/- in addition to MRP of Rs. 950/-. There is no justification for collecting Rs. 30/- towards transportation expenses when the complainant purchases the fertilizer directly from the shop of the opposite party. According to the opposite party, Rs. 30/- was collected for transporting one bag of fertilizer from their godown to their shop. The complainant cannot be asked to bear the expenses for transportation of the goods from the godown to the shop of the opposite party. The complainant went in person and made the purchase from the shop of the opposite party directly. The opposite party might have stored the fertilizer in his godown due to paucity of space in the shop or for his convenience. But as a customer, the complainant cannot be burdened with the liability to pay transportation charges of the fertilizer from the godown to the shop of the opposite party. Moreover, RW1 has admitted in the cross examination that when the complainant came for the purchase, the fertilizer was available in the shop itself. So there was no necessity to transport the fertilizer from godown to the shop at that time. The act of the opposite party in collecting transportation charges, according to us, amounts to unfair trade practice.
- In this context, it may be noted that apart from the transportation charges, Rs. 20/- was collected from the complainant for loading of the fertilizer bag on his vehicle. The collection of Rs. 20/- towards loading charges cannot be said to be illegal as it is for the complainant to make arrangements to carry the fertilizer bag he purchased from the shop.
- Regarding the second allegation of not providing the subsidy, we are of the view that there is no merit in the allegation. First of all, it is not the opposite party who is sanctioning the subsidy. Secondly, there is nothing to indicate that the opposite party had agreed to take necessary steps to get subsidy for the fertilizer to the complainant. It is admitted by PW1 in the cross examination that the subsidy is to be provided by the Government and the department/establishment responsible for sanctioning the subsidy is not in the party array. That being the position, the opposite party cannot be found fault for not providing subsidy to the complainant. No unfair trade and business practice or deficiency of service can be attributed against the opposite party in this regard.
- Regarding the third allegation of having caused damage to the vehicle due to the negligent placing to the fertilizer, it may be noted that the person who was engaged for that work is not before the court. The complainant has no case that it was the opposite party who had placed the fertilizer bag negligently on his vehicle. The person alleged to be negligent in this regard is not a party to the proceedings. The definite case of the opposite party is that the loading worker is not a person attached to his establishment. No deficiency of service can be attributed against the opposite party in the matter.
- To sum up, we hold that regarding collection of extra amount of Rs. 30/- towards transportation charges from godown to the shop of the opposite party, there is unfair trade and business practice on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is bound to refund Rs. 30/- to the complainant. Apart from this, the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the inconvenience and hardship suffered by him. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 4,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this regard. The complainant is also entitled to get a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
- Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC.132/2019 is allowed.
b) The opposite party is hereby directed to refund Rs. 30/- (Rupees thirty only) to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from 22/02/2019 till actual payment.
c) The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered.
d) The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
e) The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 25th day of September, 2024.
Date of Filing: 22/04/2019
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext.A1 – Copy of the invoice dated 22/02/2019.
Ext.A2 – Photo of the fertilizer bag.
Ext.A3 – Copy of the retail invoice dated 23/02/2019 issued by Omega Auto Spares.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 - Prakasan. M (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW1 – Junaid. M
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
True Copy,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar.
