DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Thursday the 24^th day of October 2024

CC.224/2024

Complainant

Vijayakumar. T,

S/o. Velu,

Aswin Nivas,

Vallikkunn. P.O,

Malappuram - 673314

Opposite Party

                        Naseer,

S/o. Seemankutty,

Mambayil (HO),

Mannur. P.O,

Kadalundi, Kozhikode – 673328

Indian Hardware,

                        8/638-642-643,

Mannur Valavu, Kadalundi.

(By Adv. Sri. P.V. Mohammed Shahid)

ORDER

By Sri.V.BALAKRISHNAN  - MEMBER

            This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

For the house construction of the complainant he purchased certain quantity of paints and other accessories from the opposite party. The purchase was made on 05/03/2024 and 08/03/2024 and used the material for the painting work of his house. There was shortage of one type of paint which was not available with the opposite party. Then it was obtained from the shop “Commercial Enterprises KPK Menon road, Kozhikode – 673001”. He noticed that for a certain paint of the same company the opposite party claimed Rs. 100 excess compared to the rate of shop Commercial Enterprises. He then obtained quotation from the Commercial Enterprises for the paints and other accessories that were purchased from the opposite party. It is noticed by him that the opposite party had collected an excess amount of Rs. 1,435/- for the paints purchased by him. It is also noticed that the opposite party had collected more amount than Maximum Retail Price for certain paint items.

3. The complainant has approached this Commission to give direction to the opposite party to refund the excess amount of Rs. 1,435/-collected from him. Also Rs. 12,000/- is demanded as compensation for the unfair trade practice.
4. Notice was duly served on the part of the opposite party. Even though the opposite party was represented, version was not filed and hence set ex-parte. 
5. The points that arise for determination in this case are;

1. Whether there was any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?

2) Reliefs and costs.

6. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 series and A2 were marked. MO1 was also marked.
7. Heard the complainant.
8. Point No.1: In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1. He has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint. Ext A1 series are the tax invoices dated 05/03/2023 and 08/03/2024 and Ext A2 is the quotation obtained from Commercial Enterprises, Kozhikode. MO1 series are the empty paint tins. The evidence PW1 stands unchallenged.  
9. The specific case of the complainant is that the bill of the materials purchased from the opposite party was compared with the quotation obtained from another paint dealer and it was found that the opposite party had collected Rs. 1,435/- excess amount for the total quantity purchased from him. The complainant also contended that the opposite party claimed more amount than the MRP value shown for the items. In Ext A1 series bills, there are 10 items altogether. There is no specific statement made by the complainant that for which item, the opposite party had collected excess amount when compared to Ext A2. Also Ext A2 is only a quotation and not bill. Analysis of excess payment can be done only by comparing two tax invoices. Moreover, the specification of certain items are seen different in Ext A1 series and Ext A2. No relief in this regard can be granted to the complainant in the absence of satisfactory evidence.
10. But on verifying the MO1 series the rate of MRP IC7 base is Rs. 288/- for 1 litre. As per Ext A1 series the rate shown is Rs. 300/- for 1 litre. So it is evident from Ext A1 and MO1 that excess amount of Rs. 12/- was collected by the opposite party than the MRP for the item Indigo exterior emulsion IC7 one litre. The excess collection of price than MRP is an unfair trade practice. In this case it is proved beyond any doubt that the opposite party has indulged in unfair trade practice by collecting more amount than the MRP.
11. The complainant is eligible to get a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for the unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
12. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;

                  a)  CC.224/2024 is allowed in part.

b) The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation. 

c) The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 5,000/- shall carry an interest of 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. 

d) No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 24^th day of October, 2024.

Date of Filing: 19/04/2024

     Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

PRESIDENT                                    MEMBER                                       MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext.A1 series – Tax invoices dated 05/03/2023 and 08/03/2024.

Ext.A2 – quotation obtained from Commercial Enterprises, Kozhikode.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 -  Vijayakumar. T (Complainant)

Material Object

Ext.MO1 - Empty paint tins.

     Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                                Sd/-

PRESIDENT                                    MEMBER                                       MEMBER

True Copy,      

                                                                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                        Assistant Registrar.