SAFRON MARKETING INDIA PVT. LTD. vs SUKHVIR SINGH

THE appellant is engaged in marketing activity. THE appellant floated a scheme for supply of various electric items for home delivery on deposit of the price of the concerned item. THE respondent deposited Rs. 14,916/- towards price of inverter but kept on waiting for delivery of the inverter, which never fructified. Having lost his patience the respondent demanded refund of the amount from the appellant. Instead of refunding the amount the appellant asked the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- which he deposited but still the inverter was not supplied and was asked to accept a colour TV by paying the difference of the price. THE respondent refused the offer and insisted for the refund. THE appellant did not refund the money and this led to the filing of the complaint by the respondent. Vide impugned order dated 17.6.2004 complaint was allowed by directing the appellant to refund to the complainant Rs. 14,916/- along with interest @ 12% from 26.6.2001 (the date on which the payment was made by the complainant), till the date of payment, Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental tension, physical harassment and inconvenience and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

THE appellant has mainly relied upon the terms of agreement Ex. R.W. 1/1 which was admittedly duly signed by the respondent and as per the Rule 4 of the said agreement the respondent was required to collect the product within one year from the date of advance payment failing which the advance payment is liable to be forfeited. THE appellant took the plea before the District Forum that since the respondent had failed to collect the inverter for one year of the deposit of the price thereof the amount paid by him is liable to be forfeited. There cannot be a worst case of unfair trade practice than this. After having accepted the entire price amount of the inverter from the respondent, it was incumbent upon the appellant to make the delivery of the same at home as Rule 4 was applicable only in respect of those purchasers who had deposited part amount as advance for purchase of item and not in the case of those who deposited the entire amount, i.e., who made down payment. After having accepted the entire payment it was the contractual obligation of the appellant to immediately supply the inverter at home. Such trade practice does not augur well for the protection of consumers'' interest and comes within mischief of unfair trade practice.

We do not find any merit in the appeal as the District Forum has rightly directed the appellant to not only pay the amount of the inverter but also pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the inconvenience and harassment and depriving the respondent from the benefit or the advantage of the inverter for long and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation. Appeal has no merit and is dismissed. The FDR filed by the appellant along with the appeal be returned to the appellant forthwith. Appeal dismissed.