Haryana

Karnal

CC/247/2020

Vansh Gaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Velox Retails Private - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Yadav

10 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 247 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.15.07.2020

                                                        Date of Decision: 10.01.2024

 

Vansh Gaur son of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, resident of House No.1510, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

 

1. M/s Velox Retails Pvt., SCO 205, basement Sector-12, Karnal through its Managing Director.
2. Rashi Peripherals Pvt. Ltd., Rashi complex, building, Survey 186 Dongarpada, Poman, Vasai-East, Thane Maharashtra-401208 through its Managing Director.

                                                                      …..Opposite parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, as amended up-to-date.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Suman Singh……….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Anand Kumar Garg, counsel for complainant.

                  Shri Abhishek Chaudhary, counsel for the OP-1.

                  OP-2 exparte vide order dated 16.03.2023.

 

                  (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:  

 

   The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is having a laptop and for the said laptop the complainant has purchased WED240GBSSD M2 from the OP No.1 on 07.07.2020. The OP No.1 has charged an amount of Rs.3500/- of that product from the complainant vide invoice No.IT/20-21/430 dated 07.07.2020. When complainant reached at his house and verified the contents and confirmed the particular of said product then it has been revealed to him that on the box the MRP of said product was mentioned as Rs.3200/- but the OP No.1 has charged Rs.3500/- from the complainant. As per the Essential Commodities Act, no one can charge excess amount then the MRP. After coming to know the said fact, the complainant contacted OP No.1 and asked about the reason of charging excess amount than the MRP printed on the box of the product but he gave no satisfactory reply to the complainant and then complainant asked him to refund the sum of Rs.300/- but he refused to do so. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for allowing the complaint.

2.             On notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written version and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability; concealment of true and material facts; locus standi, abuse of process of law; time barred; cause of action and jurisdiction. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant got installed the product which was purchased by him from the OP, hence the OP No.1 has charged Rs.300/- as installation charges and services charges. The charges of the product has been charged Rs.3200/- which is MRP of the said product, thus, the OP No.1 has not violated any provision of Essential Commodities Act and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

3.             Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of OP No.2, hence, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 16.03.2023. However, a letter dated 31.03.2023 has been received by post from the OP No.2, wherein it has been submitted that the allegations made by the complainant as we have never been involved in any transaction with the complainant in whatsoever nature. We further fail to understand the intent of the complainant in making us a party in the present complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint against them.  

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel or the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Vansh Gaur, Ex.CW1/A and extract of box Ex.C1, copy of bill/invoice Ex.C2, copy of bill/invoice Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 01.05.2023, by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vipin Arora, Manager M/s Velox Retails Pvt. Ltd as Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence on 14.09.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that the complainant has purchased WED240GBSSD M2 from OP No.1 and the MRP of the said product was Rs.3200/- but the OP No.1 has charged Rs.3500/- from the OP No.1 and despite request to the OP No.1, he has not refunded the excess amount, thus there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for allowing the complaint.   

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP No.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant has got installed WED240GBSSD in the laptop therefore, an amount of Rs.300/- was charged as installation and service charges from the complainant, hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

10.           Admittedly, the complainant has purchased a laptop from the OP No.1. It is also admitted that MRP of the product was Rs.3200/-

11.           The complainant has alleged that the OP No.1 has charged excess amount than the MRP of the product. The onus to prove his case was upon the complainant. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on file extract of box of product Ex.C1, wherein the Maximum retail price of the product is mentioned as Rs.3200/- including all taxes, and in the tax invoice Ex.C2 the amount of product is mentioned as Rs.3500/-, which itself clearly proves that the OP No.1 has charged Rs.3500/- from the complainant instead of Rs.3200/-.

12.           The OP has alleged that an amount of Rs.300/- was charged as installation and service charge of the product but in the tax invoice Ex.C2 there is no mention of installation charges, rather the product rate is mentioned as Rs.3500/-. Hence, the plea taken by the OP is having no force. Moreover, in the bill when charges of sandisk Cruzer Blade 32 GB (Pendrive) has been specifically described by the OP No.1 then what was the hitch to it in describing the charges of installation of the product specifically in the invoice Ex.C2. Hence, it has been clearly proved on record that the OP No.1 has charged Rs.3500/- from the complainant instead of Rs.3200/-, thus there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.    

13.           In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP No.1 to refund Rs.300/- to the complainant. We further direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him. Complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

Dated: 10.01.2024                                                                  

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Suman Singh)

                     Member                         Member