Date of Filing : 28-09-2006 Date of Order : 19-08-2009 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C.No.111/06 Dated this, the 19th day of August 2009. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Khalid Mohammed, S/o.M.P.Mammunhi Haji, } Complainant Islami Madani Manzil, Muttom Gate, Mangalpady. Po, Kasaragod Dist (Adv. A.M.Abdul Jamal, Kasaragod) Udaya Shankar, Proprietor, U.S.K, Galaxy, } Opposite party Near Nisari Threate, By Pass Road, Ramanttukara, Kozhikode. (Adv. P.V. Jayarajan, Kasaagod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The complainant Khalid Mohammed filed this complaint alleging unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party Udayashankar, proprietor, USK Galexy on the ground that opposite party collected a sum of Rs.4902/- excessively for a Sintex 125 Litre water heater. He came to know about this when he obtained quotations of the same products from local shops. According to him the actual price of the Sintex water heater was Rs.9600/-. But opposite party collected Rs.14,502/-. Though a lawyer notice was caused demanding refund of excess amount it was not refunded. Therefore the complaint claiming the refund of Rs.4902/- with compensation and costs. 2. Opposite party defended the claim of the complainant. He contended that the solar Water heater 125 litre model supplied to the complainant was the modern type with facilities and the price charged for the same is the actual price. Another contentions raised by opposite party is that there are some body who some how manages to get similar products of Sintex by clandestine manner through back door and supply in some part of Kerala illegally evading Taxes to the government. The quotations obtained by the complainant may be issued such persons or it may be in respect of old models which is not having modern facilities. Hence the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. The complainant filed affidavit in support of his case. Exts.A1 to A6 marked on his side. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence even by way of affidavit. But on the side of opposite party, DW1 SM, SETHURANGAN, the Branch Manager of Sintex Industries, Trivandrum adduced evidence. The price list of Sintex solar heater during August 2006 is also summoned at the instance of opposite party. 4. The case of the complainant is that opposite party collected Rs.14,502/- for Sintex solar water heater 125 litre that was available in local shops for Rs.9600/-. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice dated 25-8-06 issued from the shop of opposite party for Rs.14,502/-. In that 4% tax i.e Rs.557/- is included. The gross value/unit price of the solar water heater is Rs.13945/-. Ext.A2 Quotation dt.25-08-06 issued from Mah’ ASH trading company, Kumbala for 125 litre solar water heater. In that the price of water heater is shown as Rs.9600/-. Ext.A3 is another proforma invoice issued from Anuradha Agencies, Kasaragod. In the said invoice also the rate of sintex solar water heater is Rs.9600/-. 5. The contention of the opposite party is that the solar water heater supplied to the complainant was modern type with more facilities. But to substantiate this contentions no evidence is adduced by opposite party. The other contention of the opposite party is that he is the sole authorized distributor of the water heater of Sintex. There are some body who some how manages to get similar products of Sintex by clandestine manner through back door and supply in some part of Kerala illegally evading taxes to government. The Exts A2 & A3 may be issued by such persons or it may be in respect of old model which is not having the modern facilities. But in Ext.A1 the tax is separately shown. It is only Rs.557/-. So even if that tax is added to the price shown in Exts A2 & A3 it shall not be Rs.14502/- that is collected as per Ext.A1. So the contentions that in Exts A2 & A3 the rate is quoted without adding the tax and if the tax is added then the price would have been that is shown in Ext.A1 is baseless. 6. The testimony of DW1 is not reliable since he deposed that he has not seen the water heater of the complainant. According to DW1 Rs.7700/- was the ex-factory price of a solar water heater at the time of purchase by the complainant. There is only one model for 125 litre capacity water heater according to DW1 produced by sintex. If that be so the contention of opposite party that the water heater supplied to complainant is the new vession with more facilities is not sustainable and without any basis and no steps were also taken by opposite party to substantiate this contention. 7. Therefore it is clear that the opposite party has collected excess price from the complainant to the Sintex water heater for the price for which the said water heater is ordinarily sold in the market. It amounts to unfair trade practice as envisaged under Sec 2(1)(r)(ix) of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is therefore allowed and opposite party is directed to refund Rs.4902/- (14502-9600) to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.3000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest for Rs.4902/- @ 12% from the date of complaint i.e. 29-9-06 till payment with the compensation & costs aforementioned. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. 25-8-06 Tax invoice (Cash/Credit) U.S.K. Galaxy. A2.25-08-06 Quotation/ proforma Mah’ Ash Trading Company A3.26-8-06 Proforma Invoice Anuradha Agencies, Kasaragod. A4.1-09-06 copy of lawyer notice. A5. Postal acknowledgement card A6. Notice DW1. S.M. SETHU RENGAN Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
