State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uttam Phadte vs Interface Marketing & Another on 2 March, 2017
1
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANAJI - GOA
F.A. No. 43/2016
Shri. Uttam Phadte,
s/o. Kushali Phadte,
aged 57 years, married,
Serviceman, Khandola, Ponda - Goa. ... Appellant
V/s.
1. Interface Marketing,
G-8, Nizari Bhavan,
Near Cine National, Next to Hotel Sanyog,
Panaji, Goa.
2. The General Manager,
Jaquar & Company Ltd.,
Plot No. 306,
Udyog Vihar, Phase-2,
Gurgaon, Haryana - 122016. ... Respondents
Adv. Shri. V. Colaco for the Appellant.
Adv. Shri. D. Dhond for the Respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 2 absent.
Coram: Shri. Justice U. V. Bakre, President
Smt. Vidhya R. Gurav, Member
Dated: 02/03/2017
ORDER
[Per Justice Shri. U. V. Bakre, President] This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01/07/2016 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North Goa (the "Forum", for short) in Consumer Complaint No. 113/2013. The said Complaint has been dismissed. The Appellant was the Complainant and Respondents were the OPs in the said Complaint. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner as they were arrayed in the said Complaint.
22. The Complainant had purchased Jaguar brand make wall mixture, shower, Arm, Faucet, Pillar cock, 2 way tap, angular cock and other plumbing products from the OP No. 1, the official dealer of Jaguar, all amounting to Rs. 16,900/- paid by cash by the Complainant. The OP No. 1 delivered the said goods by packing them and when the Complainant opened the package at his residence, he came to know that the OP No. 1 had charged the price in excess of the price fixed/displayed on the package containing such goods, thereby changing/scribbling the original price tag of the company and thus tempering with the price tag. The Complainant immediately brought this fact to the notice of the OP No. 2 by email on 03/11/2013 and the Complainant received reply from Mr. Rajesh Jardhari on 06/11/2013, on behalf of Respondent No. 2, stating that MRP of Jaguar product was revised with effect from 02/09/2013. The Complainant again agitated with the OP No. 2 alleging that even though the MRP was revised, the agency cannot manipulate the price of old stock goods. There was no response from the OPs. Claiming that there was unfair trade practice and that he suffered loss and damage, the Complainant filed the Complaint and prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- and further prayed for a direction to cancel the dealership of OP No. 1 since it had followed unfair trade practice in business. The Complainant filed his affidavit in support of the Complaint.
3. The OPs No. 1 and 2 filed their independent written versions. However the defence was similar. They alleged as under:-
The Complainant purchased Jaguar products of the total amount of Rs. 18,680/- and a special discount of Rs. 1030/- was given to the Complainant by the OP No. 1 due to which the total amount of the three bills came to Rs. 17,650/- and not Rs. 16,900/-. The OP No. 1 denied and the OP No. 2 stated that they are not aware that the goods were delivered after packing them and that after opening the packages at residence, the Complainant came to 3 know that the OP No. 1 had charged the price in excess of the price displayed on the package. The OPs pointed out that the Complainant did not state as what was the original price of the goods fixed/displayed on the packages and what was the excess amount charged. To the email dated 03/11/2013 sent by the Complainant, reply was sent by OP No. 2 stating that MRP of Jaguar products was revised with effect from 02/09/2013. The OPs also stated that the Complainant purchased the Jaguar products worth Rs. 17,650/- but failed to explain as to how he suffered loss and damage to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- and therefore entitled to the said amount.
4. The Complainant filed affidavit-in-rejoinder to the written version filed by OP No. 1, in which he stated that he will produce the original packages as and when directed by the Forum and along with that produced a catalogue of Jaguar of the year 2012 showing the original price of the goods. The Complainant stated that these prices were applicable when he purchased the goods. The OP No. 1 then filed affidavit-in-sur-rejoinder stating that the Complainant was deliberately suppressing the original packages for reasons best known to him and this might be because he had manipulated the packages. The OPs No. 1 and 2 also filed their affidavits-in- evidence. The parties filed written arguments before the Forum. The Lr. Counsel for the parties also argued orally before the Forum.
5. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the Forum held that the OP No. 1 had given discount of Rs. 1030/- to the Complainant on the purchased goods. The Forum further observed that as a consumer, it was the duty of the Complainant to check the price before buying the goods which the Complainant failed to do at the shop of the OP No. 1 but checked it at his house after receiving the goods. The Forum further held that by reply, the OP No. 2 had informed the Complainant that the prices were revised and therefore the Complainant had to understand the genuine reasons since he 4 had bought the goods after 02/09/2013. Holding that there was no deficiency in service, the Forum dismissed the Complaint. The Complainant being aggrieved by the order has filed the present appeal.
6. Records and proceedings of the Complaint No. 113/2013 were called for. Mr. V. Colaco, Lr. Counsel argued on behalf of the Complainant, whereas Mr. Dhond, Lr. Counsel argued on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. Both the parties have filed written arguments. The OP No. 2 chose to remain absent. We have gone through the entire material on record.
7. According to the Complainant, on the very day when the goods were delivered, he had opened the package at residence and had come to know that he was charged the price in excess of that displayed on the package thereby changing/scribbling the original price tag. However, inspite of that, the Complainant did not go back to the OP No. 1 with the said package and the goods to return them back on the ground that he has been charged extra. It is pertinent to note that on the date of filing of the Complaint, the Complainant was not even knowing as what was the actual MRP and what was the amount that was paid by him which was extra. The Complainant did not plead these facts in the Complaint but merely stated that he was charged extra and claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. In fact, the Complainant ought to have returned the goods to the OP No. 1 and ought to have prayed for return of the amount paid by him to the OP No. 1 along with some compensation and costs of litigation. Vide prayer (a), the Complainant prayed for a direction to cancel the dealership of the OP No. 1. Such a prayer cannot be granted by the Forum.
8. Admittedly, the Complainant had paid Rs. 17,650/- though he says in the Complaint that he paid Rs. 16,900/-. The bills produced by the Complainant themselves show that the Complainant was 5 given discount of Rs. 1030/-. Alongwith the affidavit-in-rejoinder, the Complainant produced the catalogue which showed the prices of the year 2012 and if those were the prices of the items purchased by the Complainant, then the extra amount taken on and above MRP would have been Rs. 1175/-. Deducting the discount of Rs. 1030/- given to the Complainant, the extra amount taken from the Complainant would have been only Rs. 145/-. It is not known as to on what basis the Complainant prayed for huge compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
9. Be that as it may, the Complainant did not produce the original packages before the Forum to know whether really there were changes made on the original price tags or scribbling was done on them. In fact, the Complainant, in his affidavit-in-rejoinder, had stated that he can produce the said original packages before the Forum. The OP No. 1, thereafter, in its affidavit-in-sur-rejoinder had stated that the Complainant was deliberately suppressing the original packages. Inspite of all said and done, the Complainant did not produce the original packages. Non-production of the original packages gives rise to an adverse inference against the Complainant. Admittedly, the MRP of Jaguar products was revised as from 02/09/2013 whereas the Complainant had purchased the products, thereafter, on 28/10/2013. Possibility of the Complainant purchasing the products with revised MRP cannot be ruled out since the Complainant suppressed the original packages. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Complainant was entitled to any relief. There is therefore no substance in the appeal.
10. Hence the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
[Smt. Vidhya R. Gurav] [Justice Shri. U. V. Bakre]
Member President
sp/-
6