BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 08^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to refund her the entire amount paid for the product along with interest together with compensation of Rs.60,000/-, alleging deficiency of service.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

That the complainant purchased a study table for her son on 11.01.2013 from OP for which OP raised a bill for Rs.11,271-38.  That the complainant paid the said amount to OP prior to delivery and thereafter the table was delivered to the complainant.  That on verification the complainant found that, OP has charged for the said table more than the MRP mentioned on the same.  That MRP per unit STSCL 207014 Genius plus 207D, blue study table, price in Karnataka is Rs.9,900/- only inclusive of all taxes.  Whereas OP has charged Rs.11,271-38 vide bill dated 11.01.2013.  That the aforesaid act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and complainant is entitled for refund of the entire amount paid by her to OP together with compensation of Rs.60,000/-.  That the complainant despite her requests failed to refund the amount therefore she was compelled to approach the Forum for redressal.

3. In response to the notice OP appeared through their advocate and filed their version.  The sum and substance of the version are as under:

That OP is a reputed company having global recognition in manufacturing and marketing of home appliances for the last several decades having its marketing establishment throughout the world.  That OP is following the strict trade practice with the customers and complying all the legal requisites.  That the allegations of the complainant that, OP has collected more amount than MRP is false and baseless.  That the complainant has come up with this complaint with a sole intention to harass the OP and damage their reputation.  That without prejudice to the allegations made, OP being a reputed company in the interest of its client, is ready and willing to refund a sum of Rs.1,371-38 excess collected from the complainant.  That the complainant is not entitled for the entire amount of the product so also compensation.  Therefore, OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. On the rival contention of both the parties, the points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        5. The complainant as well as OP tendered their evidence by way of affidavit in support of their respective contentions.  Complainant has produced certain documents in support of her case.  Both the parties have submitted their written arguments.  We have also heard oral arguments.

6. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

7. OP does not deny the purchase of study table in question by the complainant by paying a sum of Rs.11,271-38 as per tax invoice No.70I/24095607 dated 11.01.2013.  Complainant has produced a copy of the MRP/product in question.  According to which MRP per unit is Rs.9,900/-.  Though OP denies that they have collected excess amount than MRP but strangely, did not deny the copy of the MRP slip produced by the complainant along with complaint.  Thus, it is evident the MRP per unit of the study table in question is Rs.9,900/- only.  OP has no explanation as to why they charged and collected excess amount than MRP of the product in question.

8. The conduct of OP in charging and collecting more amount than MRP of the product certainly amounts to grave deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, as well.  No explanation is forthcoming from OP either in their version or in their affidavit as to what made them to collect Rs.11,271-38 for the product in question, despite the fact that the product carries MRP Rs.9,900/- only.  On the other hand, OP in their version expressed their willingness to refund Rs.1,371-38 collected from complainant in excess of the MRP product.  OP in the first place should not have collected excess amount of Rs.1,371-38 from the complainant and secondly once it was brought to their notice that they have collected more amount than MRP, they should have promptly refunded excess amount to the complainant either with oral and written apology letter, when they claim themselves to be a reputed company having global recognition in India and abroad.  As stated above, this conduct of OP not only amounts to deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice.  Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

9. Point No.2.  Complainant has sought for refund of the entire amount she has paid for the product in question.  Admittedly the product in question is delivered to the complainant and it is still in her possession and she is making use of the same.  Therefore, we are of the opinion, she is not entitled for the entire amount paid by her.  OP shall have to be directed to refund excess amount of Rs.1,371-38 collected from the complainant together with interest @ 18% p.a from 11.01.2013 till the date of realization.  Further the conduct of OP must have put the complainant to great hardship, inconvenience and mental agony.  Therefore, we feel it appropriate to direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

10. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.  

11. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:   

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OP is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,371-38 to the complainant together with interest @ 18% p.a from 11.01.2013 till the date of realization.  Further OP shall pay compensation of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant for having caused inconvenience and mental agony to complainant, together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.  OP shall comply the order within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 08^th day of February 2017)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 16.08.2014.

1. Smt.Vani Vaidya

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 25.09.2014.

1. Sri.P. Raghavan.   

Document produced by the Opposite party – Nil

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*