D.O.F. 19.01.2011
D.O.O. 06.09.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011.
C.C.No.29/2011
Abdul Rahim K.
S/o. Late Muhammed, : Complainant
‘Baithul Noor’,
Peralasseri, P.O. Mundalur,
Kannur Dist.
(Rep. by Adv. M. Govindankutty)
The Proprietor,
Olympic Agencies : Opposite party
11,112 Stadium Shopping Complex,
Kannur – 1
(Rep. by Adv. P. Pradeepan)
O R D E R
Smt. M.D. Jessy, Member
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection
Act to refund of the excess amount ` 800 collected by opposite party from the complainant and compensation of ` 10,000.
The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that on 07.01.2011 complainant purchased ‘gonex company made carbonox 21 special’ two shuttle bats from the opposite parties shop by paying ` 3,150 per piece. At the time of purchase opposite party made believe the complainant that he will not get the said bat below the rate as collected above. After purchase of the shuttle but complainant had some doubts with regard to the price of the bat and on the same day itself he purchased another shuttle bat of the same denomination manufactured by the same company, he got the same by paying ` 2,750 per piece. These after the complainant approached the opposite party and requested to refund the excess amount of ` 800 collected by the opposite party from the complainant for purchasing the shuttle bat. But the same was refused by the opposite party. Complainant alleges that opposite party had played an unlawful trade practice for getting undue enrichment from a consumer. The act of the opposite party caused much mental pain to the complainant hence he filed the above complaint requesting for an order directing the opposite party to refund 800 being the excess amount collected by the opposite party from the complainant towards the cost of the shuttle bat and to pay ` 10,000 as compensation for the mental agony and pain suffered by the complainant.
Pursuant to the notice from the Forum opposite party appeared and filed their version contending that complainant has not alleged any deficiency of service towards the complainant as a consumer. The opposite party submits that they had not played any unlawful trade practice towards the complainant. The opposite party admits that the complainant had purchased two gonex carbonex 21 special shuttle bat as per invoice No.352. In fact the M.R.P. of the said bat is ` 3,640 per piece. They had given a discount of ` 490 per piece to the complainant. The further allegations raised against the opposite party is denied. The opposite party submits that they have not received ` 800 as excess amount for the two shuttle but purchased by the complainant and as such they are not liable to refund any amount as demanded in the complaint. The complaint is filed under the instigation of rival business group in the sports field for degrading the goodwill of the opposite party. Hence they praying for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
On the above pleadings the following issues were revised for consideration.
1) whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed?
3) Relief and cost?
On the complainant’s side complainant himself examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2 marked. No evidence was adduced on the side of opposite party.
Issue No.1 and 2 :
For the sake of convenience issue No.1 and 2 considered together. The complainant adduced evidence in tune with the complaint. Ext.A1 goes to show that complainant purchased two gonex company made carbonex 21 special shuttle but from the opposite party on 07.01.2011 by paying ` 3,150 per piece. Even though the opposite party assured to the complainant he will not get the said but for the above price from anywhere else, the complainant had some doubt about the veracity of the said contention and on the same day itself he gone to another shop namely Sports Campus who are also dealing with the sale of sports goods and purchased the same brand of the shuttle bat. The complainant alleging that the sports campus had levied only ` 2,750 for the shuttle bat of the same denomination which he had purchased from the opposite party. The bill issued by the Sports Campus is produced and marked as Ext.A2. The circumstances under which Ext.A2 was issued or the veracity of the same is not proved by examining the person who had issued the said bill. It is admitted by the complainant during cross examination “maximum retail price Dm-bn-cp¶p. B XpI F\n¡v HmÀ½-bn-Ã. B _mäv t^mdw ap¼msI lmP-cm-¡n-bn-«n-Ã. ` 3,640 BtWm AXnsâ apI-fn Fgp-Xn-b-sX¶v HmÀ½-bn-Ã.” The complainant has no case that the opposite party had sold the above shuttle bat to the complainant for an amount which is above the MRP. There is no difficulty for the complainant to produce the bat before the Forum. Moreover the complainant has not denied the fact that the opposite party had given a discount of 490 per piece over the MRP amount to the complainant. Then it is for the complainant’s option to purchase the shuttle bat as per the suggested rate by the opposite party. There may be so many reasons for the complainant to obtain the same kind of shuttle bat from the other shops at a reduced price. Mere production of Ext.A2 is not sufficient to prove that the shuttle bat purchased by the complainant from the opposite party is having value only ` 2,750. Therefore we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and there is no merit in the complainant’s allegation and the issue No.1 and 2 found against the complainant.
Issue No.3
Since the issue No.1 and 2 found against the complainant the complaint is dismissed and the parties shall bear their respective cost.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1 & A2. Bills dated 07.01.2011
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Complainant
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
