BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.121/2010

Dated this the 15^th  day of April 2016

Sivapragash, son of Tharumasivam

No.165, Goubert Street

Ashok Nagar, Lawspet,

Puducherry – 605 001.

…      Complainant

Vs.

1. The Proprietor

    Darling Digital World Pvt. Ltd.,

    No.80, Kamaraj Salai            

    Puducherry – 605 001.

2. The Managing Director                              

    LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd.,

    Plot No. 51 Udyog Vihar           

    Surajpur, Kasna Road                       

    Greater Noida

    Uttar Pradesh – 201 306.

                                                          ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

THIRU V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B.,          

MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT :Thiru U. Mohan Ilayaraja, Advocate

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

       OP1 : Thiru M.V. Ramachandra Murthy, Advocate

                                                OP2:   Exparte

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to :

1. Direct the first opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.990/- being the excess amount illegally received from the complainant;
2. Direct the opposite parties jointly or severally to pay a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs as damages for the mental agony suffered by him due to the opposite parties unfair trade practice with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition as compensation;
3. Direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this complaint.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

          That on 09.04.2010 the complainant purchased an Air Conditioner bearing outdoor unit Sl. No. 001LPMP000395 and indoor unit Serial No.001LPHT006577 for a sum of Rs.16,000.02 on the rate of Rs.18,000/- excluding value added tax which was mentioned in the Bill No.C182 dated 09.04.2010 from the first opposite party.   In the cartoon box, the rate has been mentioned as Rs.16,990/- and the first opposite party is unauthorized to sell the Air Conditioner above the maximum retail price prescribed under law which was against the purview of law.  On the next day, when the complainant approached the first opposite party in person and reported the same and the first opposite party requested to wait for two months since it requires to clarify the same with the LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., at Noida.  In the month of June 2010, he had made repeated demands to clarify the excess amount received and the employees of the first opposite party had pointed out each and other person shifting the burden on them.  On 23.08.2010 the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties which were acknowledged by them and the first opposite party gave an evasive reply, but the second opposite party had not replied for the same.  The complainant suffered monetary loss of a sum of Rs.990/- and the excess amount received from the complainant caused mental agony to the complainant.  Hence, this complaint. 

3.       The second opposite party remained ex parte.

4.       The reply version of the first opposite party is as follows:

          The actual cost of the Air Conditioner purchased by the complainant is Rs.16,990/- and the stabilizer cost is Rs.2,350/- as such, the total cost of the air conditioner as well as stabilizer is Rs.19,390/- and as an offer rate, the first opposite party sold the same for Rs.16,000/- and after including the VAT charges, the cost of the air conditioner was Rs.18,000/-.  Further, the complainant has purchased a TV worth Rs.9000/- inclusive of VAT charges and the complainant purchased the both at Rs.27,000/-.  The complainant purchased the above said articles on loan and the total cost of the products including document charges was Rs.28,500/- for which the complainant paid an initially amount of Rs.10,500/- and agreed to pay the balance of Rs.18,000/- on eight equated monthly instalments.  The complainant promptly paid the EMI for two months and thereafter, he had not paid the EMIs for the month of July and August 2010.  Hence, the complainant has defaulted in paying the loan amount due to first opposite party.   The first opposite party is a reputed concern and it has no necessity to get higher price from the customer.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.       To substantiate the case, on the side of the complainant, the complainant was examined himself as CW.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C7.  On the side of opposite parties, the first opposite party was examined as RW1  and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. 

6.  Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act?
2. Whether any Unfair Trade Practice by the opposite parties?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

7. Point No.1:

          The complainant purchased an Air Conditioner and a Television from the first opposite party on 09.04.2010 for a total value of Rs.27,000/- vide Ex.C1 copy of invoice.    Hence the complainant is the consumer for the opposite parties
1 and 2.

8. Point No.2:

          We have perused the complaint and reply version of the first opposite party and exhibits filed by the complainant and the opposite parties.  The second opposite party served but called absent and was set exparte. CW.1 and RW.1 examined.  The first Opposite party, in his reply version also admitted that the complainant purchased an Air Conditioner  from them on 09.04.2010.  The complainant alleged that on the cartoon, the second Opposite Party who is the manufacturer of Air Conditioner Unit, they have affixed the price label mentioning the MRP (inclusive of all taxes) as Rs.16,990/- whereas, in the Ex.C1 copy of bill dated 09.04.2010, the rate of the Air Conditioner Unit is mentioned as Rs.18,000/- and hence, the first opposite party claimed excess amount of Rs.990/- from the complainant and committed unfair Trade practice. 

9. It is the allegation of  the first opposite party that the complainant has purchased the Air Conditioner along with Stabilizer which cost Rs.2,350/- and therefore, the total cost of the Air Conditioner is Rs.19,340/- and the complainant suppressed the purchase of stabilizer along with air conditioner.  This Forum carefully perused the deposition of CW1 who has stated in his cross-examination that "I have not supplied the stabilizer at the time of purchase.  At the time of installation of AC by OP2 have not installed the stabilizer.  I purchased the stabilizer and provide him.  I purchased it for a sum of Rs.2000/-.  I have no cash bill for the purchase of stabilizer".    On perusal of  material records available in this case, there is no proof about the purchase of stabilizer by the complainant or provided by the Opposite Party. 

10. In order to strengthen the case, the complainant relied upon a judgment reported in 2011 STPL (CL) 2594 NC [JADDU BHAGAT vs WIPRO G.E. MEDICAL SYSTEM LTD.] wherein, it was held that

"Overcharging proved by own documents – same machine to another for less than Rs.84,000/-.  Plea that these Rs.84,000/- charged for accessories not proved by invoice."

On perusal of above citation, it is found that an X-Ray machine was sold to the petitioner for Rs.4,94,000/-, whereas, the same machine was sold to another person for Rs.4,10,000/-.  Hence, there was a price difference in selling the goods to two different customers.  But, in the present case, the complainant has paid only Rs.16,000/- while the alleged cost of the Air Conditioner was mentioned as Rs.16,990/- by the manufacturer inclusive of all taxes.  Hence, there is no excess amount paid by the complainant in purchasing the Air Conditioner.  On perusal of Ex.C2 the item mentioned in the label of indoor unit MRP is Rs.16,990/- and on perusal of Ex.C3, it contains cost of MRP is Rs.16,990/-.   Further, Exs.R2 and R3, though it contains 1.5 ton split AC ranging from 16,990/- it does not clearly show that the above said price would be applicable to the Air Conditioner purchased by the complainant.    Further the complainant has not taken the plea that he has purchased the Air Conditioner after seeing the Exs.R1 and R2 advertisement.  Even if it is so, the MRP of the Air Conditioner is Rs.16,990/-.  Though the Ex.C1 contains the cost of the Air Conditioner as Rs.18,000/-, the Opposite Party has charged only Rs.16,000/- for the same instead of Rs.16,990/- as alleged by the complainant and the MRP shown in the Exs.C2 and C3.   Further there is no mentioning about the discount in Ex.C1, R1 and R2.  In the absence of any agreed discount, the claim of excess amount charged by the first Opposite Party are not acceptable.  Hence, the above citation is not applicable for this case.

11. Under the above circumstances, the complainant has not proved his claim of excess amount paid by him for purchase of the alleged Air Conditioner from the first Opposite Party and also the complainant has not suffered any monetary loss towards purchase of the same.   Moreover, the complainant has not proved that the opposite parties has committed Unfair Trade Practice.   Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.  Hence this point is answered accordingly.

12.  Point No.3:

          In view of the decision taken in point No.2, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed and this complaint is hereby dismissed.  No costs.

Dated at Pondicherry on this the 15^th day of April 2016.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:  

CW.1          03.04.2012           Sivapragash

OPPOSITE PARTIES’ WITNESS: 

RW.1          05.08.2014           R. Mathivanan              

 COMPLAINANT’S EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS:    

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

           MEMBER