State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Anthony F.Z. Rodrigues vs M/S Syscon Automation on 23 February, 2016
1
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANAJI - GOA
FA No. 91/2015
Mr. Anthony F. Z. Rodrigues,
51 years old, Govt. Servant,
r/o H. No. 637, Sulabhat,
Agassaim, Ilhas, Goa. ....Appellant
v/s
1. M/s. Syscon Automation,
represented by its Proprietor,
having its Office at
H. O. & H. P. Showroom,
F-10-12, Alfran Plaza,
M. G. Road,
Panaji - Goa.
2. The Manager,
Hewlett Packward India Sales Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No. 9-111 A & 35-37 A,
Sector - VII E, Sidcul,
Pantnagar, Rudrapur,
Uttarakhand 263 153.
3. The Customer Care Executive,
Hewlett Packward India Sales Pvt. Ltd.,
24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main Road,
Adugodi, Bangalore 560 030. ... Respondents
Appellant is represented by Adv. Shri. A. J. R. Couto.
Respondents are represented by Adv. Shri A. R. Kantak.
Coram: Shri. Justice U. V. Bakre, President
Smt. Vidhya R. Gurav, Member
Dated: 23/02/2016
ORDER
[Per Justice Shri. U. V. Bakre, President] 2 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23/11/15 passed by the Lr. Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, North Goa, ("Forum" for short) in Complaint No. 66/2011.
2. The Appellant was the Complainant and Respondents were the Opposite Parties (OPs, for short) before the Forum and they shall hereinafter be referred to accordingly.
3. Case of the Complainant, in short, is as follows:-
The Complainant was working at ITI, Bogda, Mormugao Goa and the OP No. 1 is retailer and supplier of computer products. On 9/10/09, 13/10/09, 16/10/09 and 21/10/09, the OP No. 1 published advertisement in the newspaper "The Times of India" and "The Navhind Times" wherein, there was one offer for sale of desktop computer for the price of Rs. 16,990/- with free 5.1 speaker system + UPS and the other for sale of desktop computer system at the price of Rs. 19,990/- + free TATA internet connection. After reading the said schemes, the Complainant met OP No. 1 and asked for clarification and the Complainant was told not to worry and that he would get all the items as per the advertisement at no extra cost. Looking at the discount and free 5.1 speaker system + UPS, the Complainant took quotation and accordingly applied for Government computer loan. The Government of Goa granted the loan and issued cheque bearing No. 611788 dated 08/10/2009 for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- directly to OP No. 1 and the receipt was issued in the name of Complainant. On 16/10/09, the OP No. 1 gave delivery to the Complainant of the following items namely:-
HP Pavilion P 6140IN DT; HP 20" TFT Monitor; Numeric 600 VA UPS; and Philips 5.1 speakers. Thereafter when the Complainant checked the price tags on the boxes, he found that the price mentioned by the distributor for the desktop was Rs. 32,848.44/-, inclusive of all taxes; the price mentioned on the price tag on the box of digital UPS was Rs. 2,300/- inclusive of all taxes; and the price 3 mentioned on the tag of packing of 5.1 multimedia speaker system was Rs. 6,990/-, inclusive of all taxes. The OP No. 1 did not issue the tax invoice immediately but issued the same on 3/11/09 for an amount of Rs. 41,989/- in which the cost of the Desktop (including TFT Monitor, Key Board, Mouse, CPU, Hard Disk) was shown as Rs. 37,490/-; Cost of UPS as Rs. 1,923/- and that of the speakers as Rs. 961/-. The OP No. 1 had overcharged the Complainant to the extent of Rs. 16,152/-. The Complainant asked the OP No. 1 to refund the said amount since he was paying interest on the loan amount. Since the OP No. 1 refused to do so, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the Forum.
4. By way of written version the OP No. 1 alleged as under:-
In order to apply for loan, the Complainant obtained from OP No. 1 the quotation dated 17/2/09 wherein the prices of the items were mentioned. All the items mentioned in the quotation were delivered to the Complainant. The Complainant whilst quoting the prices had not included the price of 20" TFT Monitor having MRP of Rs. 10,400/-. The Complainant had sent a letter dated 28/11/09 to the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 1 by reply dated 02/12/09 had pointed out to the Complainant all the prices as per the price tags appearing on different items delivered to the Complainant and that price charged was much below the said printed MRP. The Complainant had told OP No. 1 to issue the invoice later on. The Complainant made complaints to the Sales Tax Department and to the Department of legal metrology who dismissed the said complaints.
5. Upon considering the entire material on record and hearing the parties, the Lr. Forum concluded that the Complainant was not overcharged by the OP No. 1 and there was no deficiency in service as claimed. The Complaint, therefore, came to be dismissed. Aggrieved, the Complainant has filed the present appeal.
46. Heard Mr. A. J. R Couto, Lr. Counsel for the Complainant and Mr. A. R. Kantak, Lr. Counsel for the OPs. Perused the records and proceedings.
7. The advertisements published by OP No. 1 are dated 9/10/09, 13/10/09, 16/10/09 and 21/10/09. The Complainant has pleaded in paragraph six of the Complaint that looking at the discount and free 5.1 speaker system + UPS as mentioned in the said advertisement, he took quotation and accordingly applied for Government computer loan. However, the quotation is dated 17/02/09 and the payment made by the Government of Goa by SBI treasury cheque No. 611788 is dated 08/10/09. Thus, the Complainant must have applied for Government loan not on the basis of the advertisement but on the basis of the quotation dated 17/2/09. There is therefore a false averment made in the Complaint. The delivery challan shows that delivery of the items was taken by the Complainant on 16/10/09 which is after the first three advertisements. However, there is nothing on record to establish that inspite of the quotation given to the Complainant, the OP No. 1 had agreed to supply the items in accordance with the advertisements.
8. Be that as it may, the advertisements do not speak of fixed price of Rs. 16,990/- and Rs. 19,990/- of respective computer. The advertisements speak of the price of the desktop from Rs. 16,990/- onwards and Rs. 19,990/- onwards, respectively. The above, in other words, means that the price will be in accordance with the selection of particular type or quality of computer. The price of particular desktop with stated free items was to be Rs. 16,990/- or Rs. 19,990/-, as the case may be, which price was to go upwards as per the difference in the type or may be quality of the computer. The Complainant has not purchased the items in accordance with the said advertisements. It appears that the Complainant selected items as per his choice. In the quotation, the TFT Monitor was stated 5 to be of 19". However, the delivery challan shows that the TFT Monitor delivered to the Complainant was of 20". In the advertisements, there is no mention of any type of TFT Monitor. The quotation speaks of Creative 2.1 speaker W/Woofer but the delivery challan speaks of Philips 5.1 speaker. Thus, it is seen that the Complainant did not purchase the item either in accordance with the quotation or in accordance with the advertisement, but purchased the items as per his choice.
9. The case of the Complainant is that the MRP amount mentioned on the price tag for the desktop was Rs. 32,848.44/- but the tax invoice showed the rate of desktop (including TFT Monitor, Keyboard, Mouse, CPU, Hard disk as Rs. 37,490/-). In this regard the OP No. 1 has produced the price tags which show that the price of HP Pavilion P 6140IN DT is Rs. 32,848.44/-; the price of HP 20"
TFT is Rs. 10,400/-, the price of 600 VA numeric is Rs. 2,600/- and that of Philips 5.1 Home Theatre Speakers is Rs. 6,990/-, the total being Rs. 52,838.44/-. By letter dated 2/12/09, the OP No. 1 has informed the complainant that inspite of the total MRP of Rs. 52,838.44/-, they have supplied the same to the Complainant for the total price of Rs. 41,989/-. In view of the said documentary evidence produced by the OP No. 1, the case of the Complainant that he has been overcharged is not acceptable.
10. In view of the above there is no merit in the appeal. However, the fact remains that the Government had issued cheque of Rs. 50,000/- to the OP No. 1 whereas the Complainant has purchased the computer and other connected items for total price of Rs. 41,989/- which means that an amount of Rs. 8,011/- which belongs to the Government is with the OP No. 1 which the OP is bound to return to the Government. During the course of arguments, Lr. Counsel for the OP submitted that the OP would return the said amount as per the direction of this commission. If the said balance 6 amount was returned back soon after the purchase, the same could have been deducted from the loan amount.
11. In the result we pass the following:-
ORDER The appeal is dismissed, however with an observation that the OP No. 1 shall return the said amount of Rs. 8,011/- to the Government of Goa along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. as from 08/10/09 i.e. the date of delivery of items to the Complainant till payment, which amount shall be adjusted in the loan account of the Complainant, if outstanding.
[Smt. Vidhya R. Gurav] [Justice Shri. U. V. Bakre]
Member President
sp/-