Appeal No. 961 of 2012. Case: Brindavan Electricals Vs Shivabasav. Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | Appeal No. 961 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S.B. Hebballi, Advocate and For Respondents: J.N.N., Advocate |
| Judges | B.S. Indrakala, J. (President) and G.T. Vijayalakshmi, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Citation | III (2014) CPJ 257 |
| Judgement Date | July 04, 2014 |
| Court | Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
B.S. Indrakala, J. (President)
-
The above appeal is preferred against the order dated 29.3.2012 passed in C.C. No. 120/2011 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bagalkot. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to by their respective rank as arrayed before the District Forum.
-
The complainant lodged the complaint alleging that he purchased an electrical item by name 6 m.m. Model Metal Box and on the advice of the OP he purchased G.M. Modular Company brand by paying Rs. 114. On the same day complainant noticed the MRP on the cover was written as Rs. 90 and Rs. 10 excess was collected by the OP. On the same day he enquired about the excess collection of Rs. 10 and also about VAT of Rs. 14, but the OP rejected the request of the complainant, he informed the customer care of GM Modular Company about the incident; in the circumstances, he sought awarding of Rs. 30,000 against OP for unfair trade practice and Rs. 50,000 for mental agony and Rs. 5,000 towards cost.
-
In the version filed by OP amongst other pleas it is pleaded that the OP being the dealer for Anchor articles exclusively dealing with the products of Anchor Company he sold only 6 m.m. Modular G.I. metal box of Anchor Company and not that of G.M. Modular Company and as such product which he had produced before the Forum was not correct. Further, he specifically pleaded that said G.M. Modular Company article was never sold by the OP and he had sold only Anchor Company G.I. metal box and the MRP of the said product was Rs. 114 inclusive of VAT was correct.
-
OP2 viz., GM Modular Pvt. Ltd. in its version while admitting manufacturing of electrical items by the Company, it is pleaded that MRP was clearly mentioned on the package of the box. If at all the dealer has charged more, the dealer alone is responsible and thus, sought dismissal of the case against it.
-
The District Forum by considering the evidence placed on record deemed it fit to partly allow the complaint by directing OP1 to refund Rs. 24, Rs. 5,000 towards unfair trade practice and Rs. 2,000 towards mental agony to the complainant with 10% interest p.a. in case the same is not paid within one month from the date of order.
-
Being aggrieved by the said order first OP in this appeal inter alia contending amongst other grounds that appellant has denied the particular make of the goods sold to the complainant; the complainant was required to establish the said fact and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial