Versus
- Reliance Smart Point (A store of Reliance retail Limited)
Ground Floor, Koshal Imperial,
Near State Bank of India, Po-Khetrajpur,
Dist-Sambalpur-768003, Odisha
- Reliance Retail Limited,
3rd Floor, Court House, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao,
Mumbai-400002 .…………...Opp.Parties
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant :- Self
- For the O.P. :- Sri. S.K. Patjoshi & Associates
Date of Filing:08.12.2023, Date of Hearing :12.03.2024 Date of Judgement : 22.04.2024
Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.
- The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant filed the case relating to deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the OPs by selling products at more then the MRP. The Complainant had purchased sweet Tamarind 250 gm packet of Lotus brand from OP No. 1 on dt. 8.10.2023 for Rs. 129/-. The OP No. 1 is a retail store operated by OP No. 2. The said product being Lotus Brand Sweet Tamarind 250 gm carried a MRP of Rs. 120/- per packed. According to the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011, no retailer, dealer, or other person including hotels and restaurants, can sell a commodity in packed form at a price exceeding the retail/sale price. Charging an amount above the printed MRP is considered an unfair trade practice. The very next day i.e 9.10.2023, the Complainant went to the Smart point Outlet of the OP No. 1 from where he had purchased the product and requested to refund the excess amount of Rs. 9/- charged over and above the MRP, but the staff of the OP No. 1 did not turn up stating that the prices of the product are fixed & feed into the computer system by OP No. 2 and billing is made online over which they have no control. The Complainant also insisted the OP No. 1 for return of the product but the OP No. 1 refused for which no other way the Complainant filing the case before this Commission for re-dressal.
- The Version of the OP NO.1 and 2 is that the Complainant has filed the present Complaint seeking direction from the Commission to pay Rs. 9/- being the alleged over charged amount along with compensation. The OP always ensure that all FSSAI norms, like batch number MFD date, date, MRP, used by date and contended that there is no possibility to the product which was alleged to have been sold by the OP. In this case, the Complainant purchased Lotus Sweet Tamarind and visited the store and another day alleging that he was charged more than the MRP. Also there is a policy of the OP that if such unintentional situation of overcharging occurs and if the same is pointed out by the customer at the counter, the OP immediately refunds the excess amount charged along with Rs. 100/- extra. In this case the Complainant didn’t inform anything to the store and left the store with full satisfaction. Hence the allegations made by the Complainant are false, malicious and made with a malafide intent to deceive and mislead the court in order to have monetary gain. The OPs vehemently denies all the allegations made by the Complainant in this present complaint.
- After going through the records, evidences and submission of parties, it is observed that at the time of purchase, the OPs by selling products took more then the MRP. thereafter, when the Complainant went to the Smart point Outlet of the OP No. 1 from where he had purchased the product and requested to refund the excess amount of Rs. 9/- charged over and above the MRP, the staff of the OP No. 1 did not turn up stating that the prices of the product are fixed & feed into the computer system by OP No. 2 and billing is made online over which they have no control. A Maximum Retail price is a maximum price which can be charged from the consumers in India as specified by the statute. Under the Consumer Goods (Mandatory printing of cost of production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2006, consumers cannot be charged more then the MRP mentioned on the packing of the products. So deficiency in service found against the OPs. Accordingly it is ordered.
ORDER
The case is disposed of on contest. The O.Ps are directed to refund Rs. 9/-with 9% interest from the date of payment, Rs. 20,000/- towards negligence, deficiency in service as Compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses of the petition to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.
Order pronounced in the open Court today on 22nd day of April, 2024.
Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.
