DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 60 of 28.2.2020
Decided on: 25.9.2024
Vinod Kumar Nadda s/o Sh.Krishan Dass, R/o House No.2652, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
The Manager/Prop/Partner TIF (TITU Ice Fruity) Ice Cream Parlour, Gurdwara Singh Sabha Road, Near Sat Narain Mandir, RajpuraTown, District Patiala.
…………Opposite Pary
Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act
QUORUM
Sh.Pushvinder Singh, President
Sh.G.S.Nagi, Member
ARGUED BY
Sh.Vinod Kumar Nadda, complainant in person
OP ex-parte.
ORDER
PUSHVINDER SINGH, PRESIDENT
- The instant complaint is filed by Vinod Kumar Nadda (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against The Manager/Prop/Partner TIF (TITU Ice Fruity) Ice Cream Parlour (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
- It is averred in the complaint that the OP is running the business in the name and style of TIF Ice Cream Parlour. It is averred by the complainant that he purchased two ice cream cones with double scoop from OP and after consuming the same when payment was made , OP charged Rs.160/- instead of Rs.120/- and received Rs.40/- extra from the complainant. Complainant objected for the same but the OP used filthy language. The complainant also served legal notice to the OP with the request to refund the amount of Rs.40/- alongwith compensation of Rs.5000/- but all in vain . All this amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the complaint by giving direction to the OP to refund Rs.40/- charged extra, to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and physical pain suffered by the complainant alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till realization.
- Notice of the complaint was duly issued through registered post at the correct address provided by the complainant. Neither registered notice received back un served nor OP appeared to contested the complaint and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
- To prove his case complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CW1/A his affidavit alongwith documents i.e. Ex.C1 copy of invoice/receipt, Ex.C2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C3 original postal receipt, Ex.C4 to Ex.C6 photographs of the shop and closed evidence.
- We have heard the complainant present in person and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The complainant has proved the photographs of the rate list of Ice cream on which the rate of double scoop ice cream is mentioned as Rs.60/-per ice cream. The complainant has also proved the payment receipt vide which Rs.160/- was paid i.e. Rs.80/- for each ice cream. . Complainant has also proved copy of legal notice alongwith postal receipt and from exparte evidence produced by the complainant it is proved that the rate of ice cream was Rs.60/- per ice cream and for two ice cream cones OP charges Rs.160/-.Accordingly, OP charged Rs.40/- extra from the complainant and as such complainant is entitled to receive back Rs.40/- from the OP.
- The complainant issued legal notice before filing the complaint but no reply was given by the OP nor he has come forward to contest this complaint. As such should also be awarded some compensation and in our opinion the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.5000/- as composite compensation from the OP.
- In view of the above, complaint is partly allowed and the OP is directed to refund Rs.40/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. OP is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
- The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work and for want of Quorum from long time.
-
-
G.S.Nagi PUSHVINDER SINGH
Member President
