KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 123/07

JUDGMENT DATED: 9.3.2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                   : PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                       : MEMBER

Cherian.P.Varghese,                                : APPELLANT

Panichiyil House,

Peringole kara,

Kolencherry.

(By Adv.Tom Joseph)

            Vs.

The Regional Agro Industrial                             : RESPONDENT

Development Co-operative of

Kerala Ltd.,(RAIDCO Kerala Ltd.,)

Piravom.

(By Adv.M.V.Bipin)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                   : PRESIDENT

            The appellant is the complainant in CC. 393/06 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam.  The complaint stands dismissed.

          2. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party/Regional Agro Industrial Development Co-operative of Kerala Limited obtained a higher sum when he purchased a 1.5 HP ELLAI Laxmi  Company.  He paid Rs.7,124/- for the  pump set as well as for other fittings.  The complainant received Rs.3500/- as subsidy from the Agricultural office.  In the carton of the electric motor the price printed including tax is shown as MRP Rs.4250/-, but the opposite party levied Rs.4732/- for the motor.  On an enquiry from the other shops it was found that items are available for a much lesser price. He has sought for a sum of Rs.2000/- being the amount levied in excess and Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs.

          3. The opposite party has filed version contending that the value  of the pump set sold was Rs.4732/- ie,Rs.4550/- +182/- being 4% KVAT.  The same was supplied on 20.4.2006.  According to them as per the price list of the manufacturer the MRP of the pump set was Rs.5210/- for the period from 1.8.04 to 31.8.05 and Rs.5,325/- from 1.9.05 to 30.6.06.  According to them they sold the pump set below the MRP rate.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DWs 1 and 2; Exts.A1 to A6 and Exts.B1 to B4.

          5. The Forum has noted the statement in the deposition of PW2 that there are different types of motors and the prices of the same are also different.  The amount printed in the carton need not reflect actual price as such.  The complainant has produced A4 to A6 quotations.  Therein the  price  mentioned are as Rs.4450/-,Rs.4550/- and Rs.4250/-.  The persons who issued the quotations were not examined. Exts.B3 and B4 are the price lists of the manufacturer produced by the opposite party.  The same would show that the price collected by the opposite party is less than MRP.  In the circumstances we find that the complainant has failed to prove that the amount collected by the opposite party is more than the amount fixed by the complainant.  Hence we find no interference in the order of the Forum is called for.  The appeal is dismissed.

          Office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order urgently.

          JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU                 : PRESIDENT

          M.K.ABDULLA SONA                               : MEMBER

ps