D.O.F:01/02/2019 D.O.O:10/12/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.26/2019
Dated this, the 10th day of December 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G : MEMBER
Kunhambdulla. M(aged 38 years)
S/o Muhammed Kunhi,
Malikayil House,
Poochakkad, Keekan (P.O),
Kasaragod, 671316. :Complainant
(Adv: K. Rajeevan)
And
1. Al Jeelani Medicals,
Opp: Govt Hospital Kasaragod
Pin – 671121.
(Adv: Naseema Moideen)
2. Sada Bahar Products, : Opposite parties
Hamdard, Badkal,
Karnataka 581320.
ORDER
SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant used to purchase medicine Sada Bahar Halwa herbal medicine used for weight gain from opposite party for the last two years. The complainant purchased 3 bottles of the said medicine. He came to know that its real price is Rs. 180/- Real price is covered and non- disclosed. He obtained the bill from opposite party. The complainant was being cheated by opposite party committed criminal breach of trust therefore complaint is filed for this sufferings. Due to the unfair trade practice of opposite party complainant suffered financial loss, mental tension. Hence complainant prays that opposite party shall pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and legal expenses.
The opposite party filed written version denying the allegations in the complaint opposite party contended that complaint is not maintainable at law. Actual amount was not hidden that product price is shown in bill. The opposite party is in the medical field for the last 27 years as retailer and having good reputation. The complaint is for tarnish their reputation. The complaint is bad for miss joinder and non –joinder of the manufacturer of the medicines. The opposite party is not liable to pay compensation and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as Pw1. The Ext A1 to A3 and Mo1 documents marked from their side. Ext A1 and A2 photo of the sealed bottle containing without lamination Ext A3 is the bill issued by Opposite party. Mo 1 is the original bottle of medicine. The opposite party filed chief affidavit and cross examined as Dw1. Ext B1 to B3 documents marked. The opposite party filed arguments notes.
On the basis rival contentions following points arised for consideration in the case:
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice, or deficiency in service from Opposite party?
- Whether complainant is entitled for compensation and if so for what reliefs?
All the question taken for consideration together for convenience.
The question for consideration is that here is a complainant who purchased medicine from the medical shop Opposite party No:1. The Opposite party while in the box admitted that Ext A3 is the bill issued by this staff. He also admit if any mistake in the bill responsibility with them and also admit that he has read and understand the complaint and its contains. In the complaint the Ext MO1 bottle the price shown as Rs. 300/- after removing the plastic cover shown as Rs. 180/-. Admittedly there is difference in price, and it is evident that product is being sold by collecting Rs. 300/-having received evidenced by Ext A3 bill. The complainant admit that he has no grievance about the product suggestion is denied by the complainant that the bill are not really issued by Opposite party then says the manufacturing price and accordingly they collected if, they did not commit any negligence in service in the particular case, opposite party admit that they have sold the medicine they have collected the price over and above correct amount and the price shown in the over leaf and inside the cover different amount is collected. So many consumer suffer financial loss and also suffer pain. Considering the fact that minimum price is to be collected as shown in the bill when price is shown either inside or outside the packet, amount but collected amount really higher then there is unfair trade practice and it is found that there is deficiency in service from opposite party for which opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The complainant complained and came to know the difference in price opening the cover and verified the price tag inside it but opposite party did not disclose the same to the complainant, so he filed complaint. The complainant seeking a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for which there is no justification evidence of financial loss by the complainant but shall Rs. 3000/- is found just reasonable compensation and this amount will satisfy the customer. The complainant is also entitled for cost of the litigation.
In the result complaint is allowed in part directing the Opposite party No:1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the order. If the order is not complied as above the compensation amount will carry 8% interest per annum from date of order till its realization.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 & A2 – Photo of the sealed bottle containing without lamination
A3- bill
MO1- Original bottle of medicine.
B1- The product bill shown flipkart site
B2- The product bill shown Snapdeal site
B3- The product bill shown in amazon site
Witness Examined
Pw1- Kunhabdulla.M
Dw1- Sulaiman.B.M
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar
