State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parveen General Store vs Narinder Pal Verma on 18 April, 2016
First Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.908 of 2013
Date of institution : 23.08.2013
Date of decision : 18.04.2016
Parveen General Store behind Dhobi Bazar, Opp. S.S.D.Mandir
Bathinda, through its Prop.
.......Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Narinder Pal Verma Sonof Shri Moti Ram resident of C/o Indian
Express First Floor Suraj Mukhi Market, Bathinda.
........Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against order dated
12.07.2013 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Mr. J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
Mr. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate For the respondent : Ex-parte J.S.Klar, Presiding Judicial Member The appellant of this appeal (The opposite party in the complaint) has directed this appeal against order dated 12.07.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Bathinda (in short 'the District Forum), vide which, the complaint of complainant was accepted by directing OP to pay the amount of Rs.500/- as cost and compensation including the excess rate of Rs.16/- to the complainant. F.A.No.908 of 2013 2 The instant appeal has been preferred against the order of District Forum dated 12.07.2013 by the OP now appellant.
2. Complainant-Narinder Pal has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(in short 'the Act) against the OP on the averments that he purchased one book of Social Science, vide bill no.3791 dated 30.04.2012 for Rs.71/-. The OP charged the binding charges of Rs.20/- and the total price charged by the OP was Rs.91/- from the complainant. The complainant was shocked to notice that the MRP of the said book was Rs.55/- only and OP charged Rs.71/- from the complainant illegally and fraudulently. The binding charges in the market of book was Rs.10/- at that time, but OP charged Rs.20/- from the complainant therefor. Complainant has, thus, filed the complaint by directing OP to refund the amount of Rs.26/- charged in excess and further to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.
3. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising legal objections that complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. The complaint has been filed by the complainant with malafide intention only to blackmail the OP. OP denied the fact of selling of the alleged book to the complainant. It was alleged that complainant is not the consumer of OP. The complaint is alleged to be false and frivolous by OP. On merits, OP denied the fact that complainant purchased a book from it. It further pleaded that Bill No.3791 dated 30.04.2013 was issued by OP to a customer, who purchased one Social Science book of 6th Class in English Medium. It was further submitted that F.A.No.908 of 2013 3 book of Social Science of 6th Class (English Medium) has been published by the Punjab School Education Board and sold, as per the price list issued w.e.f. 01.01.2013. The price of Social Science book of 6th Class (English Medium) was Rs.71/- as mentioned at Sr.No.60 in the copy of the price list. As per bill dated 30.04.2013, OP charged Rs.71/- for the above book. OP relied upon bills no.37640-37644 dated 04.03.2013 issued by book depot of Punjab School Education Board at Bathinda. The OP controverted the other averments of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. Complainant tendered in evidence his two affidavits Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-4 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Parveen Kumar Ex.OP1/1, another affidavit of Sh.Rajinder Kumar Ex.OP1/5, alongwith documents Ex.OP1/2 to OP1/4, OP1/6 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Dissatisfied with the order of District Forum Bathinda, the OP now appellant preferred this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, as respondent of this appeal has been set ex-parte, vide order dated 28.01.2016. We have examined the evidence on the record and heard the submissions of counsel for the appellant. The complainant filed his affidavit Ex.C-1 and supplementary affidavit as well on the record in support of his submissions, as pleaded in the complaint. Complainant specifically stated on oath in affidavit Ex.C-4 that OP charged in excess price of Rs.71/- of the book instead of its MRP Rs.55/-. It is further stated on oath in this affidavit that OP charged F.A.No.908 of 2013 4 Rs.20/-, instead of Rs.10, which was prevalent rate in the market. Complainant stated in his affidavit that OP over charged him exceeding the minimum retail price fixed for book in the market. Ex.C-2 is copy of bill No.3791 dated 30.04.2013 issued by OP. It is recorded in it that an amount of Rs.71/- has been charged for Social Science book + binding charges as Rs.20/-. The total amount of Rs.91/- has been charged by the OP. This book has been produced on record by the complainant. It further relates to this effect that complainant purchased the book of Rs.71/- and paid Rs.20/- for binding, otherwise there is no question of production of this document placed on the record. Ex.C-3 is front page of the above book showing the printed price of the book as Rs.55/- and it has been overwritten with black ink as Rs.71/-. The over charged of the MRP of Rs.55/- is visible to the naked eyes on the record on Ex.C-3. Ex.C-3 is further corroborated on record by the affidavit of Narinder Pal Verma Ex.C-4 and bill no.3791 dated 30.04.2013 Ex.C-2. OP relied upon Ex.R-1 affidavit of Sh.Parveen Kumar, OP denied this fact that it sold book of Social Science of class 6th standard to the complainant, vide bill no.3791 dated 30.04.213. Ex.R-2 is the letter from District Manager Punjab School Education Board, Bathinda to OP that 6th standard book of Social Science. The price of book has been raised from Rs.55/- to 62/- in February 2012 and it was further raised from Rs.62/- to Rs.71/- on 01.01.2013. Ex.OP1/3 is the price list of the books in which at Sr.No.60, the rate of Social Science book has been fixed for Rs.71/- by the Board, as per this price list w.e.f. 01.01.2013. Ex.OP1/4 is the list of books purchased by OP in bulk. Affidavit of Rajinder Kumar binder of the books is Ex.OP1/5 on the record that he F.A.No.908 of 2013 5 has been charging Rs.20/- for plastic binding for each of the text book of the school students for the last two years. OP sold the book on 30.04.2013 for Rs.71/- on the basis of price list Ex.OP1/3, which is approved by Punjab School Education Board. The price of Social Science book of 6th class standard in English, Hindi Medium was fixed for Rs.71/- and in Punjabi medium for Rs.72/-. This price was effective w.e.f. 01.01.2013. The bill Ex.C-2 dated 30.04.2013 is on the basis of price list Ex.OP1/3. We do not find it a case of overcharging by OP from the complainant, as per pleaded version of the complainant. He purchased the book of Social Science from OP for Rs.71/- and the alleged date of bill is 30.04.2013. However, bill Ex.C-2, has disproved the case of the complainant, that he has purchased the book before the enhancement of the price w.e.f. 01.01.2013. The order of District Forum is, thus, found to be erroneous which is under challenge in this appeal. District Forum failed to appreciate the controversy of the case. The order of District Forum is liable to be set aside in this appeal being unsustainable in the eye of law.
6. As a result, of above discussion, we accept the appeal of the appellant and by setting aside the order of the District Forum Bathinda dated 12.07.2013, the complaint filed by the complainant stands dismissed.
7. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.250/- at the time of filing this appeal in this commission and thereafter deposited another sum of Rs.250/-, as per the directions of this Commission. The registry is hereby directed to remit Rs.250/- + Rs.250/- alongwith interest, if any accrued thereon, to the appellant by way of a crossed F.A.No.908 of 2013 6 cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days from the date of this order.
8. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 12.04.2016 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties as per rules
9. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J.S. Klar) Presiding Judicial Member (Harcharan Singh Guram) Member April 18, 2016 RK 2