BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 112/2014 filed on 18/03/2014
Dated: 30..06..2014
Complainant:
T.S. Varghese, 39 Mummys Colony, Kaudiar-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 003.
(Party in person)
Opposite party:
The Proprietor, M.D Techno Guard Industries, Puthenmadathil Buildings, I.T.I Junction, Chengannur – 689 123.
This C.C having been heard on 16..06..2014, the Forum on 30..06..2014 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR, MEMBER:
Complainant’s case is as follows: Opposite party is engaged in the business of supplying invertors. Complainant have been using an invertor supplied by the opposite party since 2006. For the purpose of the same, opposite party supplied him a battery he demanded specifically for ‘Exide invertor’ battery. When the battery was given be was given a bill for Rs. 12,000/- plus a bill for Rs.400/- towards the repair charges for the invertor. But the bill shows an amount of Rs. 8100/- and that too for a different type battery. When the complainant questioned this, he was told that in order to save tax such a bill was made. Since the battery was already connected to the circuit, he was forced to accept the same. In the cover, the MRP is shown as Rs. 10,121/- where as he was demanded to pay Rs. 11,000/-. But the complainant paid only Rs. 10,000/-. Moreover the old battery was not given back to the complainant which will fetch Rs. 1250/- in the local market. So he claims refund of the excess amount collected from him, ie Rs. 1129/- along with cost and compensation.
2. Notice send from this Forum to the opposite party was unclaimed and so proceeded exparte against them. Complainant filed chief affidavit along with 4 documents.
3. Points raised:
(i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party proved?
(ii) Reliefs and costs if any?
4. Points (i) & (ii): Complainant approached this Forum claiming refund of the excess amount claimed from his by the opposite party. He insisted for an ‘Exide Invertor battery’, but the one supplied by the opposite party is of another category and that too with a price above MRP. As per Ext.P2, the MRP of the battery supplied to the complainant is Rs.10,121/- for rest of India. Here the complainant paid only Rs. 10,000/- as is admitted by him. But the bill given to him shows Rs. 8100/- as the price. Rs. 10,000/- is acknowledged by the opposite party as is evident from Ext. P1. Complainant claims that the old battery will fetch an amount of Rs. 1,250/- which is not returned to him. So he has to pay Rs.1,250/- less than the billed amount. Since the opposite party is snot contesting we have no other alternative than to go with the complaint. So we are ordering the opposite party to refund the excess price charged is Rs. 1129/- as per the calculation of the complainant.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 1129/- to the complainant within a month of receipt of this order. Opposite party is also directed to issue proper bill for the invertor along with this amount. No order on cost and compensation.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of June, 2014.
Sd/-LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-R. SATHI : MEMBER
Ad
C.C. 112/2014
APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness : N I L
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Copy of tax invoice No.12 dated 26/11/2013 issued by the opposite party
P2 : Copy of MRP label on the packet
P3 : Letter dated 12/12/2013 issued by the complainant to the opposite party
P4 : Copy of Regd. A/D envelope
III. Opposite party’s witness : N I L
IV. Opposite party’s documents : N I L
Sd/- PRESIDENT
Ad.
