Complainant/petitioner purchased a Titan Watch bearing no.519YL13-K67C1 for Rs.1061/- from ‘Salem Times’ on 13.06.2004. He purchased the same brand/type watch from respondent no.2 – the dealer of the opposite party no.1 – on 15.06.2004. Respondent no.2 demanded and received a sum of Rs.1140/- for the same. On coming to know that the respondent no.2 had charged excess amount, petitioner sent a legal notice. Respondent no.2 on receipt of the legal notice sent a Demand Draft of Rs.91/- being the difference
-2- between the purchase price from Salem Times and the sale price of Rs.1140/- charged by him. Petitioner did not accept the same and filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.26,000/- towards business loss, Rs.25,000/- towards compensation, refund Rs.91/- and Rs.500/- towards costs along with interest. Respondent being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission set aside the direction issued by the District Forum regarding payment of Rs.26,000/- towards business loss, Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and the costs of Rs.500/-. However, the direction of the District Forum regarding refund of Rs.91/- towards excess amount charged was upheld. Petitioner being aggrieved has filed the revision petition. He has sent a letter saying that because of his poverty he is not in a position to contest the revision petition and prays that the petitioner be disposed of after taking into consideration the orders passed by the fora below and affidavit filed by him. -3- State Commission has disposed of the appeal by observing thus: “Admittedly, as seen from Ex.A1 and A2, for the same kind of watch, manufactured/marketed by the 1st opposite party, through its dealers, viz. M/s Balaji Times, and Salem Times, they have charged differently. For this, an explanation was given, as seen from the written version, that after fixing the price, company used to communicate it to the various branches, through E-mail or floppy, sometime and in that process, a mistake might have crept in, which was not intentional or intended to cause loss to anybody which cannot be labeled as unfair trade practice, or deficiency in service, which cannot be altogether ruled out. The complainant, probably knowing that at the same place, two dealers are selling the same kind of watch, for different rate, appears to have purchased watch, one on 13.6.2004 and 15.06.2004, when this mistake, whether it had happened knowingly, or unknowingly, informed to the opposite parties, they have also issued a Demand Draft for Rs.91/- on 29.6.2004, within the same month, which was wantonly refused by the complainant, thereby showing, that when the mistake was pointed out by the complainant, it was willingly, without any hesitation, rectified by the dealer. If they have justified the sale of the same watch, for different price, then only we find fault. This mistake would -4- have occurred, as rightly urged on behalf of the appellant, due to communication error, or delay in sending the communication, after the revival of the price, which cannot be termed as negligent act. It is not known, why the complainant has given a complaint, to the police, as seen from Ex.A6. There is no material, that the complainant had closed his shop, thereby he suffered business loss. Assuming that the complainant had suffered any business loss or customer loss, i.e. not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, and if at all, the complainant ought to have worked out his remedy elsewhere, which was not properly considered by the District Forum. On the other hand, taking into account the police complaint alone, in the absence of any other material, the District Forum, has drawn a presumption, that the complainant would have closed the shop, suffered hardship and mental agony, which are all not acceptable to us. As and when the question of mental agony, for which the complainant is not entitled to compensation, since it is not explained, what kind of mental agony, it had caused, except extra payment of Rs.91/-, that was also offered to the complainant, immediately after the issue of notice. Thus we are of the considered opinion, there is no unfair trade practice, or deficiency in service, proceeded by negligent act, which is proved by the complaint itself, deserving to be dismissed, upsetting the findings of the -5- District Forum. However, the fact remains, the opposite party had offered to refund of Rs.91/- for which alone, the complainant is entitled to the relief, that too without any cost, since he refused to accept the refund, and rushed to the consumer forum, unnecessarily.” We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. There was no deficiency in rendering service and the respondent offered to refund the sum of Rs.91/- charged in excess due to mistake but the petitioner refused to accept the same. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. |
