IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of July, 2016.
Filed on 27.01.2016
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George, President
2. Sri. Antony Xavier, Member
3. Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.32/2016
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri. P. S. Aravindakshan The Proprietor
Ammuppilli veettil M/S Chennoth Sanitary Wares
Varanad P. O. Near Devi Temple
Cherthala CVM Building
Cherthala
(By Adv. Dinesh Mallan)
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case in precise is as follows:-
The complainant on 17th November 2015 purchased both wall & floor tiles from the opposite party for the purpose of furnishing his toilet. The opposite party charged Rs.9,980/- as the tiles’ cost from the opposite party. The opposite party obtained a surplus amount of Rs.1,770/- from the complainant towards the tile cost. As per the MRP stated in the cover of the tiles purchased, the actual amount ought to have been collected from the complainant is only Rs.8,210/-. The opposite party with an intention to make illegal enrichment availed the aforesaid extra amount from the complainant. The complainant on a number of occasions either in writing and otherwise demanded to give him back the excess cost the opposite party wangled from the complainant. The complainant’s all such efforts went vain. The opposite party committed deficiency of service. The opposite party caused untold mental agony and pecuniary loss to the complainant. The complainant got aggrieved on this and approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. On notice being served the opposite party filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the opposite party was always keen on maintaining good relationship with its customers. The cost of every product is being subjected to change from time to time in line with its characters. The complaint is without any bonafides. The complainant is not entitled to any of the relief sought for in the complaint. The purpose of the complainant is to harass the opposite party intending to make unlawful gain. The complaint is only liable to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, the opposite party vehemently contends.
3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the complainant’s deposition, and the documents Ext.A1 to A8 were marked. The opposite party filed version, and cross examine the complainant, however doesn’t make it a point to adduce any further evidence.
4. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that crop up before us for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. Keeping in mind the contentions of both the parties we made a searching analysis of the materials available on record before us. The complainant’s case is that the complainant purchased both floor & wall tiles from the opposite party in order to use them in the levorotary. The cost of the tiles the complainant was made to pay to the opposite party was Rs.9,980/-. Later on the complainant realized that the real cost of the tiles would come only up to Rs.8,210/- even as per the maximum retail price specified on the packet of the tiles sold out to the complainant. Thus according to the complainant the opposite party obtained from the complainant an excess amount of Rs.1,770/- towards tile cost. Notwithstanding complainant’s
repeated requests and demands the opposite party is disinclined to hand back the additional amount the opposite party collected from the complainant. On the other hand the opposite party contends that the complainant’s purpose is to make unlawful gain. According to the opposite party the cost of the products is always susceptible to fluctuation, and the complainant is without bonafides. We meticulously went through the complainant, version, the deposition and the other evidences placed on record by the parties. On a plain perusal of the Exbts particularly Exbts A2, A7, & A8 it could be very well found that the cost of the tiles could be arrived only on Rs.8,210/- even if worked out in any manner as stated in the packet. It is pivotal to see that the opposite party save making some contentions does not take any steps to prove what have been put forth by them. Thus viewing from any perspective it is unfolded that the opposite party had obtained an extra amount of Rs.1,770/- from the complainant than what should have been procured from him. Definitely the opposite party’s practice is unfair, and it goes without saying that the opposite party is liable to pay to the complainant the aforesaid amount.
In the context of what have been elaborated supra, the opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,770/- (One thousand seven hundred seventy only) received in excess from the complainant towards the cost of the tiles. Further the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,000/- (Four thousand only) as compensation. The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand only) as cost to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of this order.
In the result the complaint is allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2016.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
APPENDIX:-
Evidence of the complainant:
PW1 - P. S. Aravindakshan (witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the bill dated 17.11.2015
Ext.A2 - Details of excess price
Ext.A3 - Copy of the letter dated 1.1.2016
Ext.A4 - Copy of the postal receipt
Ext.A5 - Copy of the acknowledgement card
Ext.A6 - Copy of the letter from Cherthala Taluk Consumers Association
Ext.A7 - Copy of the MRP details
Ext.A8 - Copy of the MRP rate
Evidence of the opposite parties: - Nil
-//True copy//-
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Typed by: Pj/-
Compd. By:
