Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/124

Dharampal - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNIQUE GIFT GALLERY - Opp.Party(s)

INPERSON

12 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No.  124 of 06.11.2019

                                 Date of decision                    :    12.02.2020

 

Dharam Pal son of Sh. Dasondhi Ram, resident of House No.4, Gali No.3, Piara Singh Colony, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

Unique Gift Gallery, Near Jain Janj Ghar, Phool Chakkar Bazar, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar through its proprietor

   ....Opposite Party

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Harish Kumar, Adv. counsel for complainant  

O.Ps. exparte 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

1.   Dharam Pal son of Sh. Dasondhi Ram, resident of House No.4, Gali No.3, Piara Singh Colony, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar, through his counsel has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.109/- as excess charged by the O.P. in respect of Toy Avenger having printed MRP Rs.31/- only from the complainant; to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation; pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses; any other relief which this Hon'ble Forum may deem fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. 

2.    Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on 25.10.2019, the complainant visited the shop of OP for purchase a toy for his grand son. His grand son demanded Avenger and he requested the O.P. to show the toy 'Avenger'. The O.P. showed the Avenger duly packed which was selected by his grand son. He asked the price and the O.P. demanded Rs.150/- for a piece of toy (Avenger), however, on asking the complainant for genuine price, the O.P. returned Rs.10/- and charged Rs.140/-. After seeing the printed price of the toy on the packet was Rs.31/-, the complainant again visited the shop of O.P. and demanded from him bill qua the purchase. The O.P. prepared the bill for the toy however on the insistence of the complainant Avenger was written by the proprietor of O.P. It is totally unfair trade practice to charge Rs.140/- instead of Rs.31/- only. The action of the O.P. is unlawful and illegal. Hence, this complaint. 

3.    On being put to notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P., accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.02.2020. 

4.    On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered original bill Ex.C1 and copy of envelop of toy Ex.C2 and closed the evidence.

5.    We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.    Complainant counsel Sh. Harish Kumar argued that on 25.10.2019, the complainant visited the O.P. shop and purchased one Toy by paying Rs.140/-. When the complainant came home then he saw that the printed price of the toy on the packet was only Rs.31/-. The learned consel argued that OP charged Rs.140/- instead of Rs.31/- which amounts to deficiency in service as well as malpractice. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint with cost.

7.    Complainant Dharampal has given his address in the complaint as resident of District Rupnagar. Besides this, there is nothing on the file. The purchase cash memo as well as the photocopy of the pamphlet Ex.C2 speaks nothing qua the name of the purchaser/complainant. But at the same time O.P. did not appear despite service to rebut the complainant's version. In this way, the forum is going to decide the complaint on merit with the observations that this forum has territorial jurisdiction.

8.    Coming to the deficiency or the malpractice is concerned the complainant is to prove firstly the purchase item from the O.P. This fact can be proved by way of Ex.C1 which is the Cash Memo as per the complainant version which was issued by the "Unique Gift Gallery', Janj Ghar, Phool Chakkar Bazar, Ropar but not in the name of complainant. Then the date 25.10.2019 is mentioned with the different pen/ink whereas the remaining part like digital Rs.140/- or toy is written by different pen/ink. Moreso, there is no detail of the toy purchased. Ex.C2 is the photocopy of the toy and its MRP is mentioned Rs.31/- including all taxes but no evidence has come on the file to correlate the receipt Ex.C1 with the photocopy of toy Ex.C2. While granting relief to the complainant, the forum is to correlate the MRP with the receipt. So, receipt is without mentioning the toy item batch number etc. So after going through the material on the file, though exparte, this forum has come to the conclusion that the complainant remain unsuccessful in proving deficiency as well as malpractice on the part of O.P.

9.    In the light of discussions made above, the complaint stands dismissed.

10. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.          

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                     (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.12.02.2020                            PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                          (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                    MEMBER