For fleecing a Kullu man by charging excess amount and double transportation charges, SAS Nagar-based bath fitting supplier will have to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices.
The district consumer disputes redressal forum, SAS Nagar, on October 30, also directed Glamour Bath Impression, Industrial Area, Phase 9, to refund Rs 1.33 lakh with 9% interest from January 10, 2012, till realisation to complainant Shyam Sunder Sood.
Sood, who had placed an order worth Rs 2.32 lakh (including VAT) for bathroom fittings with the firm, claimed to have paid an advance of Rs 1.1 lakh and the balance amount was to be paid upon delivery of articles agreed between the parties at Kullu, but was asked to make the payment before delivery.
Sood alleged that on receipt of delivery of articles it was found that the items received were not as per order. Against the order of two showers only one shower was found in the delivered articles and the pressure pump was not working from the very date of installation, despite requests the same has not been replaced.
He alleged that against the receipt of payment of Rs 2.23 lakh, the supplier issued bill for just Rs 98,053.
In its reply, Glamour Bath Impression denied the allegations of charging excess amount. They also denied the allegation regarding the short supply of shower and claimed that Sood never brought to their notice any defects about the operation of the pressure pump and.
They claimed that VAT and sales tax had been rightly charged as per rules.
The forum said, “The bill is deficient by Rs 1.24 lakh and this act of the supplier amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Further, the double charging of transportation amount of Rs 9,050 per se also amounts to unfair trade practice.”
The order ruled, “Merely saying that the deficient bill has been issued at the instance of the complainant does not absolve the supplier of its statutory liability of fair business practice. The act of the supplier in our considered opinion, therefore, causing financial loss to the complainant as well as to the state exchequer, amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.”