Tribunals and Commissions

STANDARD AUTOMOBILES vs SYED ASHRAF

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 8 January 1991 · Citation: 1991 2 CPJ 626 : 1991 2 CPR 19

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.Balagangadharan Nair , R.Ramachandran Nair , C.G.Sethu Lakshmi J.
RESULT
Appeal partly allowed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 405 words
1.

THESE appeals arises out of the same case instituted by the common respondent

2.

THE respondent-complainant''s case was that on 22.6.1990 he purchased from the appellant''s shop a "power high performance" ignition coil, that although the package showed the price inclusive of taxes to be only Rs. 75/-, Rs. 88/- was collected from him as its price and that although he asked for a bill he was given only a quotation and that when he questioned about the excessive price the person in charge of the charge behaved arrogantly. The defence taken in the version was one of total denial.

The defence District Forum, Kozhikode accepted the complainant''s case to be true and awarded him Rs. 1,000/- as compensation. .

3.

THE complainant who is a tutor in the Medical College Kozhikode has given evidence in support of the complaint. He has also produced Ext. Al, the quotation given by the shop and Ext. A2, a photo copy of the package cover. Ext. A2 proves that the price of the ignition coil was Rs. 75/- inclusive of all taxes. PW. 1, a partner of the business, who is the appellant in appeal No. 8, had admitted that the two automobiles Standard Automobiles and Pahlson''s Automobiles belong to him and his brother jointly and that the complainant had purchased the ignition coil for Rs. 88/- from their shop. He would have claim that although the package fixed Rs. 75/- as price he was entitled to sell the coil for Rs. 88/-. Apart from the evidence of the complainant it is clear on the appellants'' evidence also that the price had been overcharged. THE appellants were thus rightly found liable for unfair trade practice. THEre is thus conclusive ensure to support the finding of the District Forum. Perhaps because of this circumstances counsel for appellants submitted that we might have inclined to reduce the amount of price as what has been awarded in exercise and beyond the circumstances of the case. We are inclined to agree with this submission. We feel that all aspects considered and a sum of Rs. 500/- in lieu of Rs. 1,000/- would meet the justice of the case.

4.

WE modify the order of the District Forum reduce the amount of compensation for Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 500/-. The rest of the order is confirmed. The appeal is allowed to the above extent and dismissed in other respects. Appeal partly allowed.