State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amarsons Autos (Hero Honda) Malout Road ... vs Daljit Singh Son Of Kulwant Singh R/O ... on 23 August, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1313 of 2007
Date of institution : 24.9.2007
Date of decision : 23.08.2012
Amarsons Autos (Hero Honda) Malout road Muktsar through
its proprietor Raj Kumar.
.....Appellant/O.Ps.
Versus
Daljit Singh son of Kulwant Singh R/o Village Chak
Giljewala, Tehsil and District Muktsar.
.....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
4.6.2007 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Muktsar.
Before:-
Sardar. Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member.
Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Kulbir Sekhon, Advocate For the respondent : Ex-parte JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This is O.P's appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 4.6.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the complaint was allowed and the O.Ps were directed to refund Rs. 18/- charged excess First Appeal No.1313 of 2007 2 from the respondent and pay him compensation of Rs. 1500/- and litigation costs of Rs. 1000/-.
2. The case of the complainant is that on 31.8.2006 he purchased from the O.P/appellant switch assessor Comb and Lock vide bill No. 1897 for Rs. 310, that when he checked the polythene wrapper of the lock, he noticed that the price mentioned thereon was Rs. 292/-. According to him, the O.P. charged from him Rs. 18 in excess, he therefore approached the O.P for the refund of the said amount but they refused to do so. He then served a registered notice to which a reply was received mentioning wrong facts. He therefore, filed the present complaint for recovering the aforesaid amount of Rs. 18/- and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost.
3. The appellant contested the complaint admitting that amount of Rs. 310/- was charged from the complainant correctly as it was the price thereof. According to them the wrapper produced by the complainant is of earlier times when the price of the lock was Rs. 292/-. They denied if the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed.
4. Both the parties produced evidence in support of their contentions.
First Appeal No.1313 of 2007 3
5. Learned District forum after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 4.6.2007. The O.Ps have challenged the same through this appeal.
6. A notice of the filing of the appeal was issued to the complainant/respondent for 22.1.2008 but the same was not received back either served or un-served. It was therefore presumed to have been served on the complainant/respondent. None had appeared for him on 22.1.2008 and he was proceeded against ex-parte.
7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record.
8. It is not disputed that the lock was purchased by the complainant from the appellant on 31.8.2006 for Rs. 310/-. The appellant has referred to Ex. O.P-2 which is the sale invoice dated 23.8.2006 mentioning the price of switch assessor Comb and Lock as Rs. 310/-. Learned counsel argued that he sold the said piece for the aforesaid amount and therefore, there was no excess amount received from the complainant for which the compensation could be imposed. This argument was rightly discarded by the learned District Forum. The perusal of outer cover Ex. C-1/C shows that the M.R.P of the lock purchased by the complainant was First Appeal No.1313 of 2007 4 Rs. 292/-. This piece had been packaged in March 2006 and was purchased by the complainant on 31.8.2006. The O.P. has also produced another wrapper Ex. O.P-3 on which the price of the lock is mentioned as Rs. 310/-. However said piece was packed in March 2007 long after the purchase of the lock by the complainant. Ex. O.P-3 could not be taken into consideration for determining the M.R.P. of the said article. Similarly Ex. O.P-2 cannot be considered in this respect because the sale price cannot be determined from this document but has to be determined from the M.R.P. mentioned on the wrapper Ex. C-1/C itself. There is no evidence to suggest if it was Ex. C-1/C which was purchased by the appellant vide bill Ex. O.P-2. Otherwise also the seller also could not charge from the appellant more than Rs. 292/- for the lock contained in the wrapper Ex.C-1/C and further the appellant also cannot charge more than that. We are therefore, of the opinion that O.P -2 and O.P-3 are of no help to the O.P/appellant to entitle him to charge Rs. 310/- for the said lock.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the learned District Forum rightly allowed the complaint. The impugned order is perfectly legal and valid and it does not call for any interference. There is no merit in this appeal First Appeal No.1313 of 2007 5 and same is accordingly dismissed with cost. Litigation cost are assessed as Rs. 2000/-.
10. Amount of Rs. 1259/- was deposited by the appellants on 24.9.2007. This amount be sent to the complainant/respondent by the registry by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of the period of revision, if no stay order is received from the Hon'ble National Commission.
11. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL)
PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
August 23, 2012. (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)
Rupinder MEMBER
First Appeal No.1313 of 2007 6