(Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) This appeal is filed in 2003 by the original complainant against the order passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Forum, wherein the President dismissed the complaint, one member of the forum below wrote dissenting order. Another member (3rd member) dismissed the complaint. The appeal has been filed by the original complainant against the dismissal of complaint.
(2) The facts lie in narrow compass as under:-
The complainant purchased Executive Plus Model of IFB Washing Machine from the showroom of the opponent No.1, M/s.Sony Mony Electronics who is the dealer of the opponent No.2 for `18,500/- on 30/05/2001. He purchased it and demanded delivery immediately. He then came to know that there was special offer from the manufacturer on the purchase of washing machine during the said period and the dealer had not explained and allowed benefit of the offer to the complainant. He wrote letters and paid many visits to the show-room of the opponent No.1, but he was not given due explanation and therefore he filed consumer complaint claiming `1,510/- towards difference in price in terms of the offer and `50,000/- as compensation for mental tension and agony.
(3) The opponents filed written version. They pleaded that during the said period, there were two types of offers for the said product :-
i) Local billing, the MRP was `20,500/- (immediate delivery)
ii) Direct billing (Goa billing), the MRP was `16,990/- under “Wait and save scheme” (with 15 days delivery time)
The opponents further pleaded that the offer was explained to the complainant. He wanted to have an immediate delivery. Therefore, he was billed in local billing at 18,500/- after giving discount to the complainant. The complainant had purchased the machine having a price tag printed both the prices. The opponent denied adoption of unfair trade practice.
(4) After taking into consideration the pleadings of both parties and the documents placed on record, the President of the Mumbai Suburban District Forum wrote order dismissing the complaint. Mrs. Suniti Velankar, Member sitting with him wrote dissenting order and allowed the complaint. Because of erroneous reading of order, she dissented from the judgement given by the President of District Forum. Therefore, this matter was placed before the third member, Mrs.Meena P. Shah, however concurred with the order given by the President of District Forum. As per majority view, the complaint was dismissed. Against this dismissal, the original complainant filed this appeal.
(5) This appeal was filed in 2003 and since then the appeal has been lying unattended. The appellant had not bothered to enquire with the office. As per the policy of the Commission, this matter was placed before us for disposal on 25/07/2011. Intimation of that date was displayed on notice board and published on internet board of the Commission. On 25/07/2011, on finding that appellant as well as the respondent was absent, we directed office to issue notice informing next date of hearing i.e. 14/09/2011 to both the parties. On 14/09/2011, on finding that notices have not been issued by the office, we directed to office to issue intimation to both the parties by ordinary post informing next date of hearing i.e. 30/11/2011. Accordingly, on 03/11/2011, office issued notices to the parties. On 30/11/2011 i.e. today, the appellant as well as the respondent are absent. Therefore, we propose to dispose off the appeal on merit.
(6) We perused the order passed by the President of Mumbai Suburban District Forum concurred by the third member, Mrs.Meena P. Shah. The forum below found that as the complainant wanted immediate delivery of washing machine, the opponent gave discount and charged a price of 18,500/- which was paid by the complainant. The opponent No.1 has rightly applied and recovered the price of the machine as per scheme. We do not find there was unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent. The forum below rightly dismissed the complaint holding that there was no unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent. Hence, the order.
ORDER
(1) Appeal stands dismissed.
(2) No order as to costs.
(3) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 30th November, 2011.
