State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amarsons Autos Malout Ro vs Satish Bhatia on 2 May, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 550 of 2007
Date of institution: 18.04.2007
Date of Decision : 02.05.2012
Amarsons Autos Malout Road, Muktsar through its owner/prop/ partner Raj
Kumar.
........Appellant.
Versus
Satish Bhatia son of Sh.Ragbir Chand son of Sh.Gumani Ram Sardar Bazar,
Near Gha mandi Muktsar.
........Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 13.3.2007
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Muktsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.K.S.Sekhon, Advocate For the respondent : Ex-parte PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER This is an appeal filed by Amarsons Autos, Malout Road, Muktsar (hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 13.03.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (hereinafter called 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the respondent was accepted by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/complainant had purchased a 900ML 4-T plus engine oil for his motor cycle on 25.2.2006 from the appellant. The appellant charged Rs.125/- vide bill No.869 whereas Rs.115/- was printed as maximum retail price on the container. Appellant also used rough language against the respondent. Alleging First Appeal No.550 of 2007 2 deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, respondent claimed compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses.
3. Appellant filed their reply and alleged that respondent had 2-3 plots near Shamshan Ghat at Bathinda Road. In order to sell those plots respondent had spread rumor that one plot had been purchased by appellant. He had requested the appellant to affirm it to any prospective buyer of other plots if someone inquires from him. Appellant refused to make such false representation to any person and consequently, nourished grudge against him. It was pleaded that price of engine oil upto December, 2005 was Rs.115/- and it was increased to Rs.125/- by the manufacturer after that. Container was purchased on 25.2.2006 and the price of the engine oil was Rs.125/- but cleverly the respondent filed the false complaint on the basis of empty container containing price of rate prior to December, 2005. On 25.2.2006 one person, namely, Raju on behalf of respondent came for getting the service of motorcycle from his Service Station and purchased engine oil from the appellant and paid Rs. 125/- without any protest and also signed the job card as fully satisfied. The motorcycle was in the name of the respondent as such, in the job card name of Satish Bhatia is mentioned as purchaser of the engine oil and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with heavy costs.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, allowed the complaint and the appellant was directed to refund excess amount of Rs.10/- to the respondent and also pay him compensation of Rs.500/- and litigation cost of Rs.300/- for unnecessary thrusting litigation.
5. Hence, the appeal.
First Appeal No.550 of 2007 3
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. The present appeal is filed by the appellant on the grounds that the order of the District Forum is against the evidence and facts and the order passed is erroneous and arbitrary, which is liable to be set-aside.
8. There is no dispute between the parties that engine oil container of 900 ml was purchased on 25.2.2006 from the appellant by the respondent, who charged Rs. 125/- as price of the same.
9. The dispute between the parties is only that whether on 25.2.2006 the price of the container was Rs. 125/- or Rs. 115/-.
10. The version of the appellant is that till December, 2005 the price of the engine oil container of 900 ml was Rs. 115/- and after that the same was increased to Rs. 125/-, as such, he had not charged Rs. 10/- in excess from the respondent.
11. The appellant had not produced any rate list of the engine oil which was applicable on 25.2.2006 and also failed to produce any container of same company of 900 Ml to prove that on 25.2.2006 the price was printed as Rs. 125/- instead of Rs. 115/- and he had charged the same as per the market retail price which was applicable on 25.2.2006.
12. The version of the appellant that the engine oil was purchased by Raju and not by the respondent has no concern as it is not denied by the appellant that he had not charged Rs. 125/- from the purchaser of 900 ml oil.
First Appeal No.550 of 2007 4
13. The appeal of the appellant has no force and the order of the District Forum is on the basis of admitted facts by the appellant, which is legal and valid, as such, the order of the District Forum is affirmed. The appeal of the appellant being without any merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
14. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 27.04.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
15. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 405/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs. 405/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
16. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
May 2, 2012 (Piare Lal Garg)
As Lb/- Member