LAWS(NCD)-2004-1-328

KAMLA DEVI Vs. UPHAR MEDICAL BANIPARK JAIPUR

Decided On January 22, 2004
KAMLA DEVI Appellant
V/S
UPHAR MEDICAL BANIPARK JAIPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals between the same parties involving the same common facts were heard togather. These are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Smt. Kamla Devi alias Smt. Chalti Devi, the complainant-appellant in all the three appeals, is an old lady of more than 60 years of age and suffering from heart desease. Her doctor had prescribed "nippy" tablets for her said ailment. She purchased such tablets on 24.2.2001, 1.3.2001 and 11.3.2001 from the respondent opposite party and every time the respondent charged a price of Rs.20.50 for strips of ten tablets each from her against the printed maximum retail price including sales taxes at Rs.14.20 of each strip. When she objected against such unfair trade practice of the respondent, he rudely refused to sell the tablets to her but since she could not get such tablets conveniently from other sellers of medicines she was compelled to purchase the tablets from the respondent at higher price. She, therefore, filed three complaints, being Nos.785, 786 and 787/2002.

(3.) In the replies filed by him the respondent did not dispute the factual position that he had charged Rs.4.74 for each of the three strips of nippy tablets over and above the actual price thereof at Rs.14.20+11% = 15.76 for each strips, but contended that it was due to slip of pen that extra price of the tablets was written in the cash memos and charged from the appellant accordingly. He tried to explain that rush of customers at the relevant time and keeping the strips of Nippy tablets in the old box of keeping such tablets whereupon the price of such tablets was mentioned as Rs.20.50 per strip of 10 tablets, had contributed to the charge of extra amount by him from the appellant. At the same time he blamed the appellant for her not bringing the fact of charging incorrect or excess price from her to his notice and knowledge and alleged lack of moral courage on her part in that behalf.