Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that Opposite Party No.1 is the authorized agent of Opposite Party No.2 and works on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 and having franchise office of Opposite Party No.1 at Moga and Opposite Party No.1 is Incharge cum Responsible person/ dealer for acts and deeds of Opposite Party No.2 here at Moga. Further alleges that on 23.06.2020 the Complainant visited the shop of Opposite Party No.1 and purchased some household goods besides Agni CTC Tea Leaves 500 G having batch No. 04/2020 109902 and on the asking of the Opposite Party No.1 the Complainant paid the money as per the cash memo No. 102 dated 23.06.2020. On reaching home, the Complainant has come to know that the Opposite Party No.1 has charged Rs. 111/- of Agni CTC Tea Leaves 500 G against the MRP of Rs.100/- and he immediately reached the shop of Opposite Party No.1 and when the matter of this overcharging was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.1, the employee of Opposite Party No.1 did not turn deaf ear and rather insulted the Complainant in the presence of so many customers sitting there and refused to admit the rightful claim of the Complainant and also refused to refund the excess amount so charged by Opposite Party No.1 which is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. This matter was also brought to the knowledge of the Opposite Party No.2 telephonically, but they did not respond. Not only this, it is a settled law that none of the dealer, manufacturer can charge excess price than the MRP because MRP means include all taxes etc. It is also settled that MRP is inclusive of all taxes and retailer/ dealer can sale any product below the MRP, but can not charge above MRP i.e. price higher than MRP, so if any charge above the MRP, then over charging is a clear cut unfair trade practice. In support of this version, the Complainant refer a pronouncement of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 3156 of 2016 titled as Benetoon India Private Limited Vs. Ravinder Singh and also other pronouncement of Hon’ble UT State Commission, Chandigarh decided in CC No. 400 of 2015 decided on 14.01.2016 titled as Shyam Sunder Sharma Vs. ADI Sports etc. Further the aforesaid act of the opposite parties is illegal, unwarranted and uncalled for because due to overcharging than the MRP by the Opposite Parties, when the Complainant visited the shop of Opposite Party No.1 for asking about the overcharging, the officials of Opposite Party No.1 insulted the Complainant in the presence of other customers sitting in the shop at that time and in this way, the Complainant felt humiliation and insult and in such a way, the complainant suffered a lot on account of his reputation in the society as well as on account of mental tension and harassment in the hands of the Opposite Parties. Though the loss suffered by the complainant can not be compensated in the shape of money, but still the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental tension and harassment The complainant made repeated requests to the opposite parties to make good the loss of the Complainant and make the payment of the compensation as mentioned above, and not compelled to indulge the complainant into any litigation, but the opposite parties refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) Opposite Parties may be directed to refund the excess amount charged by them from the Complainant.
b) The amount of Rs.2,00,000/- be allowed to be paid by the opposite parties on account of compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant.
c) The cost of complaint amounting to Rs.11,000/- may please be allowed.
d) And any other relief to which this Hon’ble Consumer Commission, Moga may deem fit be granted in the interest of justice and equity.
Hence this complaint has been filed by the Complainant for the redressal of his grievances.
2. Upon notice, initially one Mr.Aditya, representative of Opposite Party No.1 appeared, but lateron none has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 nor filed the written reply to defend its case. On the other hand, none has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 also, and hence, the Opposite Parties were proceeded against exparte by this District Commission.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of Receipts Annex.A2 and A5 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the Complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
5. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that Opposite Party No.1 is the authorized agent of Opposite Party No.2 and works on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 and having franchise office of Opposite Party No.1 at Moga and Opposite Party No.1 is Incharge cum Responsible person/ dealer for acts and deeds of Opposite Party No.2 here at Moga. Further alleges that on 23.06.2020 the Complainant visited the shop of Opposite Party No.1 and purchased some household goods besides Agni CTC Tea Leaves 500 G having batch No. 04/2020 109902 and on the asking of the Opposite Party No.1 the Complainant paid the money as per the cash memo No. 102 dated 23.06.2020. On reaching home, the Complainant has come to know that the Opposite Party No.1 has charged Rs. 111/- of Agni CTC Tea Leaves 500 G against the MRP of Rs.100/- and he immediately reached the shop of Opposite Party No.1 and when the matter of this overcharging was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.1, the employee of Opposite Party No.1 did not turn deaf ear and rather insulted the Complainant in the presence of so many customers sitting there and refused to admit the rightful claim of the Complainant and also refused to refund the excess amount so charged by Opposite Party No.1 which is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. This matter was also brought to the knowledge of the Opposite Party No.2 telephonically, but they did not respond. Not only this, it is a settled law that none of the dealer, manufacturer can charge excess price than the MRP because MRP means include all taxes etc. It is also settled that MRP is inclusive of all taxes and retailer/ dealer can sale any product below the MRP, but can not charge above MRP i.e. price higher than MRP, so if any charge above the MRP, then over charging is a clear cut unfair trade practice. In support of this version, the Complainant refer a pronouncement of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 3156 of 2016 titled as Benetoon India Private Limited Vs. Ravinder Singh and also other pronouncement of Hon’ble UT State Commission, Chandigarh decided in CC No. 400 of 2015 decided on 14.01.2016 titled as Shyam Sunder Sharma Vs. ADI Sports etc. Further the aforesaid act of the opposite parties is illegal, unwarranted and uncalled for because due to overcharging than the MRP by the Opposite Parties, when the Complainant visited the shop of Opposite Party No.1 for asking about the overcharging, the officials of Opposite Party No.1 insulted the Complainant in the presence of other customers sitting in the shop at that time and in this way, the Complainant felt humiliation and insult and in such a way, the complainant suffered a lot on account of his reputation in the society as well as on account of mental tension and harassment in the hands of the Opposite Parties.To corroborate his aforesaid assertion, the Complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of receipts Ex.C2 to Ex.C5. Not only this, with regard to loss incurred due to non payment of the maturity amount, the complainant has sought compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs on account of mental tension and harassment caused in the hands of the Opposite Parties and cited judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as Patel Roadways Ltd. Vs. Birla Yamaha Ltd. III (2000) SLT 554-II (2000), CLT 83 (SC), 1(2000) CPJ 42 (SC) 2000 (4) SCC, 91. The aforesaid evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence on record as the Opposite Parties did not opt to appear and contest the proceedings. In this way, the Opposite Parties have impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Parties have no defence to offer or defend the complaint.
6. So, from the entire unrebutted and unchallenged evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that the Opposite Parties have adopted unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by not making the maturity amount of the receipts. On this count, the Complainant prayed for refund of excess amount of Rs.11/- and also to pay Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment and Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation, but we are of the view that the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and we award the same accordingly.
7. In view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint is allowed and we direct the Opposite Parties jointly or severally to refund the excess price charged from the complainant amounting to Rs.11/- and also to pay lump sum compensation to the Complainant amounting to Rs.5,000/- (five thousands only) on account of mental tension and harassment as well as litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 14.09.2020 till its realization. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties jointly or severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.
8. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:28.03.2022.
