Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/81

Sri Kalyanbrata Bhattacharjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor of Sunny Traders And Others. - Opp.Party(s)

Smt. S. Chowdhury

23 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

    CASE NO:  CC- 81   of  2014

                      
Sri Kalyanbrata Bhattacharjee,
S/o- Lt. Bhabotosh Bhattacharjee,
A.K. Road,  Joynagar, 
Agartala, West Tripura.             …...........Complainant.

     ______VERSUS_____

The Proprietor of Sunny Traders,
A.K. Road, Ramnagar, 
Agartala, West Tripura.             …............Opposite Party.
    

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHRI B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant           :  Mrs. Silpi Choudhury              
                           
For the Opposite parties        : None appeared.
                  

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : - 23.03.15.

J U D G M E N T

        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 hearing (referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant,  Sri Kalyanbrata Bhattacharjee of Joynagar, Agartala, West Tripura against the O.P, namely Proprietor of Sunny Traders A.K. Road,  Ramnagar, Agartala, West Tripura over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.P. 
2.        The case of the complainant as gathered from the record is that on 03.04.14 he had purchased one Knt. Vogue Bulb for Rs.50/- from the O.P., the Proprietor of 'Sunny Traders'. The O.P.-trader also issued a cash memo as a proof of sale of the said bulb. On returning home, it came to his notice that the actual price of the bulb was Rs.19/- only inclusive of all taxes, though the O.P. took Rs.50/- from him in excess of the price of the bulb. Then he met the O.P.-trader and brought this fact to his notice but he misbehaved with him. On 15.09.14 he served an advocate's notice upon the O.P.-trader but he did not respond to it. According to the complainant, the O.P. trader indulged in unfair trade practice by taking price in excess of the actual price of the bulb. Hence, the O.P.-trader is guilty of negligence and deficiency in rendering service.
        
3.        The O.P. trader did not contest the case despite receipt of notice. Hence, the case has been proceeded exparte against him.
        
4.        In support of the claim, the complainant has examined himself as P.W.1 and has proved and exhibited the following  documents:
    Exhibit 1: Money receipt dated 03.09.14,
    Exhibit 2: Challan dated 03.09.14,
    Exhibit 3: Advocate's notice dated 15.09.14.
    Exhibit M.O. 4: One packet containing 40 Watt Osram bulb.

        FINDINGS:-

5.        The points that would arise for consideration in this proceeding are:-
        (i) Whether the O.P.-trader charged for the bulb a price  in excess of the price printed in the body of the packet;
        (ii) Whether the O.P.-trader adopted unfair trade practice. If so, whether he is guilty of negligence and deficiency in service.

6.        We have already heard argument advanced by the complainant. Also perused the pleading, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the complainant.

7.        It is the allegation of the complainant that on 03.04.14 he had purchased one Knt.Vogue electric bulb for Rs.50/- from the O.P.-trader who also issued a cash memo in this regard. On returning home, on a careful look on the packet of the bulb, it was noticed that body printed price of the bulb was mentioned as Rs.19/- inclusive of all taxes though he charged for Rs.50/- from him  being the price of the bulb in violation of the provision laid down in the Consumer Protection Act. During the course of the proceeding, the complainant examined himself as P.W. 1 and proved and exhibited the 'cash memo' as Exhibit- 1 and the 'packet of bulb' as Exhibit- M.O. 4.  On examination of the exhibits on record, we find that the O.P.-trader issued cash memo in favour of the complainant as a token of sale of one Knt.Vogue bulb for Rs.50/-. The complainant in his evidence has also stated similar fact. Curiously, the packet of bulb (Exhibit- M.O. 4) alleged to have been purchased by the complainant from the O.P.-trader appears to be one Osram 40 Watt electric bulb not a Knt.Vogue bulb. Since the Exhibit M.O. 4 does not support the version of the complainant of having purchased one Knt.Vogue bulb from the O.P. trader and since the cash memo (Exhibit-1) issued for the item sold by the O.P.-trader is different from the item actually purchased by the complainant, the allegation levelled against the O.P.-trader  charging for price in excess of the actual price of the item does not sustain. That being so, the question of adopting unfair trade practice by the O.P. trader does not arise.
8.        Consequently, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant stands dismissed. However, we make no order as to the costs. 
9.        The Exhibit- M.O. 4 Osram 40 Watt bulb be returned to the complainant on expiry of the period of appeal.

10.                    A N N O U N C E D

 

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 
SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SRI B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.