BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) SANGAREDDY, MEDAK DISTRICT.
Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanayma, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
Smt U.Sunita, M.A., Lady Member
Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L. Male Member
Tuesday, the 22nd day of December, 2008.
CC.No.29/2008
Between:
Akula Mangalakar S/o A.Manaiah,
Aged: 32 years, Occ:Business & Agri,
R/o H.No.7-72, Malkapur,
Mandal Kondapur, District Medak.
… Complainant
And
The Proprietor,
M/s Hanuman Enterprises,
12-66, Shop No.4 & 5, APHB Colony,
P.R.Pally X Road, Sangareddy,
District Medak.
… Opp.Party
This complaint is came up for hearing before us in the presence of Sri G.Hanumantha Reddy Advocate for the complainant and Sri G.Venkata Ramulu (Advocate) for opposite party, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum having gone through the material on record and made the following .
O R D E R
(Per Smt U.Sunita, Lady Member)
This complaint was filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for praying to the Hon’ble forum to allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages with 18% p.a., and return the 50% of bill amount and costs of this complaint.
-2-
The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is constructing residential house at the stage of completion of the house the complainant intending to fix the tiles in the bath room and near wash basin.
The complainant approached the opposite party who is doing business of electrical, hardware, prints and signatory & Tiles, under the name and style of Hanuman enterprises. The complainant purchased 30 boxes of 8’ X 12” semi gold plus wall tiles, 5 Boxes 12’ X 12” Real Floor tiles, and 6 boxes 8’ X 12” Uday, and the opposite party issued a cash bill No.2147 dt.23.5.2008. Accordingly the bill the 30 boxes were charged Rs.175/- each box but whereas the box price were fixed as MRP is Rs.90/- by manufacturing company. It is stated that at the time of purchasing the material the complainant same is pointed out. The opposite party bluntly given a reply that they will charge only Rs.175/- per box even though the manufacturing company is fixed maximum price is Rs.90/- per box. Similarly other two type of boxes was also charged more than fixed MRP. The complainant depositing a box out of 30 boxes and remaining other boxes are using completing the residential house and further stated that the opposite party almost charged 100% excess prescribed on the MRP. Hence this complaint.
The opposite party filed counter stating that the complainant is neither maintainable under Law nor on facts mentioned by the complainant. It is admitted that the complainant was constructed a house and he was purchasing the tiles from the opposite party shop. The complainant purchased 30 boxes of 8 X 12” wall tiles, 5 boxes 12 X 12” rear floor tiles and 6 boxes 8 X 12” uday and the opposite party issued cash bill No.2147, dt.23.5.2008 and the bill of 30 boxes were charged Rs.175/- each box. The opposite party denied that at the time of purchasing the material the same is pointed out by the complainant. But the opposite party clearly stated about the rates that they will charging Rs.175/- for each box even though manufacturing company is fixed maximum price Rs.90/- per box, on the box it is showing that very long back it was printed since one year the rates was very hiked in the market. It is further stated that the opposite party was purchased the tiles from Chamunde marketing sanitary & tiles, Plot No.19
-3-
Indiranagar, M.D.Farm Road, Kanigiguda, Hyderabad on 15.5.2008 each box Rs.133.35 i.e., 8 X 12” sacimy gold wall tiles and Rs.151/- per each box i.e., 12 X 12” floor tiles rear floor tiles the same bill was issued by the Chamunde marketing the same is filed. The opposite party sold the same tiles to the complainant by charging 12.5 vat tax on the price the opposite party never charged the high price the Chamunda market stamped on the box the present rate. The opposite party denied the opposite party bad intension charged more price and the complainant bill purchase at any cost from the opposite party shop took un give advantage of the complainant position and charged Rs. 175/- for box instead of Rs.90/-. The opposite party denied that the opposite party charge 100% prescribed on the MRP. The Opposite party purchased the same material from the chamunda marketing, Secunderabad the same tiles was sold to the complainant without excess price. The complainant was filed sealed box before this forum the box was printed very long back. Since one year the rate was very hiked two or three times therefore the chamunda marketing was stamped on the box what was the rates was hiked in the market. The opposite party was purchased the material from the wholesale shop and same was sold to the complainant the opposite party was not manufacturer he was doing business on commission basis only. The opposite party was running this shop since long time and also good reputation and good name in the market and the opposite party is not liable for any damages and there is no deficiency in service of the opposite party. Hence the complainant dismissed with cost.
Heard both sides.
The point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant proved the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ?
Both the parties have filed their affidavit, written arguments and documents filed. Ex.A1is Receipt and A.2 is sealed tiles Box are marked on behalf of the complainant. Ex.B.1 is marked on behalf of the opposite party.
-4-
The case of the complainant is that un trade practice, tiles box – Sale of tiles box for Rs.175/- per box against MRP Rs.90/- hence the complainant is filed with prayer direct the opposite party Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages with 18% and return the 50% of bill amount and costs of this complaint. The opposite party contended that the material purchased from Chamunda marketing saninatary and tiles plot No.19, Indiranagar M.D form road, Kanigiguda, Hyderabad on 15.5.2008 each box Rs.133.35 paisa i.e., 18 X 12” and semi gold tiles Rs.151/- per each box i.e. 12 X 12” floor tiles rear floor tiles the same will was issued by Chamunda marketing. The opposite party sold the same tiles to the complainant by charging 12.5 VAT tax and further stated that the complainant filed sealed box before this forum the box was printed very long back. The opposite party did not charged 100% prescribed on the MRP. The opposite party contention is that the complaint is not maintainable. Hence the complaint is dismissed with the costs.
We have gone through the contents of the complaint and counter of opposite party affidavits and written arguments and documents filed herein and the relevant material available on record. As per Ex.A1 and as per section 2(1) d the complainant is the consumer, hence the complaint is maintainable. It is not in dispute that the complaint has purchased 30 boxes 8’ X 12” semi gold plus wall tiles, 5 Boxes 12’ X 12” Real Floor tiles, and 6 boxes 8’ X 12” Uday an amount of Rs.175 each box and the opposite party issued a cash bill No.2147 dt.23.5.2008. The opposite party contended that the material purchased from Chanmunda marketing @ each box 133.35 ps and the opposite party sold to the complainant with including VAT and transport charges. The VAT and transport is not pertaining to the consumer for purchasing of material. As per Ex.B1 the opposite party purchased each box Rs.133.35 ps but they sold to the complainant Rs.175/- each box it is shows that the opposite party sold to the excess amount of Rs.41.65 ps. As per Ex.A2 i.e. (Tiles sealed box) it shows that the MRP rate is 90/-. It is clearly shows that the opposite party collected excess amount of Rs. 85/- the opposite party fallowed un trade practice and done gross negligence upon the consumer. As per Ex.A.1 receipt it is proved that the opposite party has collected the excess amount. Ex.A.2 clearly shows the MRP rate is only
-5-
Rs.90/-. It is shows that the opposite party collected each one box Rs.85/- excess amount. As per citation of I (2006) CPJ 521 Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad in the case of Hotel Nyay Mandir Vs Ishwarlal Jinabhai Desai held that sale soft drink Mirinda for Rs.18 per bottle against MRP of Rs.12.50, complaint regarding sale of soft drinks beyond MRP and seeking refund of excess amount. As such the point is answered in favour of the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant excess amount of Rs.2,550/- and also pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and also pay costs of Rs.1,000/- towards this litigation. The orders shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this the 22nd day of December, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
