Order No. -17 Dt.-23/05/2014
The record is placed before us for passing final order.
The hearing arises out of an application filed by Soham Chakraborty(complainant) against Ajanta Footcare (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party).
Complainant’s case as per the petition of complaint in short is that he purchased a pair of shoes, Model No.CG456, size 10 on 09/05/2013 from the O.P. at the price of Rs 310/- although the MRP of the said shoes was Rs.285/- as printed on the shoes. On complainant’s enquiry the O.P. could not give any satisfactory reply and the O.P. just replied that it was their system. It is alleged by the complainant that the bill issued by the O.P. contains, ”goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged or money refunded,” which is in violation of the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and that the O.P. has also violated the rules regarding MRP and that amounts to Unfair Trade Practice. The complainant asserts that on 17/05/13 he wrote a letter to the Manager Ajanta Footcare (India) Pvt. Ltd., Jalpaiguri asking clarification regarding MRP and a copy of that letter was sent to Mr.Pradip Mitra, The Chief Operating Officer, Ajanta House, 79/2 AJC Bose Road, Kol.700014 for information and taking necessary action and those letters were received by both of them on18/05/13 and 20/05/13 respectively but the O.P. didn’t give any reply. Thereafter on 03/06/13 the complainant lodged a complaint with the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Jalpaiguri over the said matter. The Assistant Director fixed the date of hearing on 02/07/13. The complainant and the O.P. appeared before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Jalpaiguri on 02/07/13 and after hearing both the parties the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs confirmed that the O.P. was involved in Unfair Trade Practice and thereby the O.P. had deceived the complainant and thereafter the Assistant Director asked the complainant how much he claims towards compensation for mental harassment since purchase of the pair of shoes from the O.P. At this the complainant claimed Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and the O.P. took seven days time to settle the claim. On 09/07/13 both the parties appeared before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Jalpaiguri and there the representative of the O.P. offered Rs.6000/- to settle the claim of the complainant and the complainant turned down the offer of the O.P. Then the Assistant Director advised the complainant to lodge the complaint against the O.P. with this Forum and dropped the matter. Under this background the complainant has filed this case and prayed for relief as specified in the petition of complaint. The O.P. has contested the case by filing W.V. on 07/09/13 denying and disputing inter-alia the claims and contentions as made by the complainant in his petition of complaint. The specific stand of the O.P. as we find from the W/V is that on the date of purchase of shoes by the complainant the MRP of the said shoes was Rs.310/- although old MRP of Rs.285/- was printed in the said shoes and that there was a sticker of Rs.310/- striked in the said shoes. The complainant was aware of the said fact at the time of purchase and he intentionally removed the sticker of Rs.310/- from the shoes purchased by him. The O.P. has prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION.
1.Is the case maintainable as alleged?
- Is the complainant a consumer as per provision of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
- Is/Was there any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. as alleged?
- Is the O.P. guilty for Unfair Trade Practice as alleged?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for? If so to what extent?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All five points are taken up together for consideration and decision for the sake of convenience.
Seen and perused the petition of complaint, the W.V. and all other relevant documents and materials on record. We find that although the O.P. has challenged the maintainability of the case in its W/V on some technical grounds but this matter was not agitated by the O.P. at the time of hearing of the case. From the record we find that the complainant purchased a pair of shoes from the O.P. on 09/05/13 and he has filed this case on 24/07/13. Therefore we can safely say that the instant case has been filed by the complainant well within the period of limitation and that the complainant being the bonafide purchaser of the pair of shoes in question has got locus standy to file his case against the O.P. Therefore we find and hold that the case is well maintainable.
Admittedly the complainant had purchased the pair of shoes in question from the O.P. on 09/05/13 at a price of Rs.310/- instead of original MRP of Rs.285/- and the O.P. issued a cash memo after receiving the price from the complainant. Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is a consumer as per provision of Sec 2(d) of C.P. Act 1986.
It is alleged by the complainant that he had to pay Rs.310/- to purchase a pair of shoes in question from the O.P. and that he MRP of the said shoes was Rs.285/- at that point of time and that the cash memo issued by the O.P. on 09/05/13 in favour of the complainant contains,”goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged or money refunded,” in violation of the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and that the complainant made letter correspondence with the O.P. on a number of occasions for getting relief but in vain and for this he had to lodge complaint with the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Jalpaiguri Regional Office and at the time of hearing of the said matter the O.P. has admitted the allegation made by the complainant and tried to settle the matter with the complainant in lieu of Rs.6000/- but the complainant refused the said proposal of the O.P. and as per advice of the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Jalpaiguri, he has filed this case. Ld.Lawyer for the complainant has referred a decision of Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi reported 111(2007)CPJ305NC in support of his above claim and contention. In reply Ld.Lawyer for the O.P. argued that on the date of purchase of the shoes in question the MRP of the shoes was Rs.310/- and there was a sticker of Rs.310/- on the old MRP of the shoes and that the complainant intentionally removed the said sticker of Rs.310/- from the shoes and that no Unfair Trade Practice was done by the O.P. and that the O.P. is not guilty for deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant. Ld.Lawyer for the O.P. has referred to a decision of Honorable Kerala High Court downloaded from internet passed in CRL.MC.No.996 of 2009.
Now after due consideration of argument advanced by the Ld.Lawyers of both sides, the petition of complaint, the W/V, the annexures and other materials on record and after going through the case laws referred to above by both the parties we find that admittedly the complainant purchased a pair of shoes from the O.P. on 09/05/13 at a price of Rs.310/-.Admittedly there is a note on the reverse of the cash memo filed by the complainant to the effect that “Goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged and money will not be returned in any circumstances”. It appears from annexture 3 and other documents filed by the complainant on the date of hearing that the complainant wrote this letter to the Manager, Ajanta Footcare (India) Pvt. Ltd., Merchant road ,Jalpaiguri on 17/05/13 describing therein his entire allegation about purchase of his shoes on payment of higher amount of MRP as printed on the shoes with request to intimate him the explanation for the clarification of the described fact and a copy of this letter was sent to Mr.Pradip Mitra, The Chief Operating Officer, Ajanta House, 79/2 AJC Bose Road, Kol.700014 but the O.P. gave no reply to this letter and ultimately the complainant had to lodge a complaint with the Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Jalpaiguri, Regional Office over his said allegation and the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Jalpaiguri, Regional Office took up the matter, issued notice upon both the parties for settlement/mediation and finally on 09/07/13 the representative of O.P. agreed to pay Rs.6000/- and a pair of shoes to the complainant but the complainant refused such proposal of O.P. and as such the matter was dropped on 09/07/13 and thereafter as per advice of Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Jalpaiguri, the complainant has filed this case. The aforesaid matter was not denied by the O.P. in their W/V. Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the O.P. has admitted the facts stated by the complainant in his complaint paragraph no.8 to 19. In the decision reported in 111(2007 CPJ 305 (NC), The Honorable National Commission has observed that “if there was an old label on the Duckback Babysheet, indicating MRP of Rs.92 its MRP wouldn’t increase, if subsequently due to increased cost of production, transportation etc. MRP of subsequently manufactured goods is increased”. This observation and the finding of the Honorable National Commission is well applicable in our present case. So the O.P. cannot take increased MRP from the complainant and other customers. Therefore we can safely come to this conclusion that the allegation as made by the complainant regarding taking of excess price in the guise of increase of MRP and for doing Unfair Trade Practice and for deficiency in service are true as the complainant has successfully proved all his aforesaid allegations against the O.P.by reliable evidence. In this view of the matter we find and hold that the O.P. is guilty for Unfair Trade Practice and also for deficiency in service. The O.P> has failed to prove his allegations that the complainant had removed the sticker of Rs.310/- from the shoes in questions by reliable evidence.
In view of our discussions made herein before we find and hold that the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs specified below.
All points are disposed off. In the result the case/application succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the case is allowed in part on contest against the O.P. with cost of Rs.2000/-(Two Thousand).
The complainant do get an award of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) towards compensation and harassment against the O.P. and in our considered opinion that would be just an adequate compensation for the complainant in the facts and circumstances of the case. Now as the O.P. had deceived numerous numbers of their customers of shoes model no.CG457 by taking increased MRP of RS.310/- in lieu of original MRP of Rs.285/-, the O.P. is hereby levied with the compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) under the heading of punitive damages. This amount of compensation is to be paid by the O.P. for adoption of Unfair Trade Practice and that will be deposited by the O.P. in the State Consumer Welfare Fund within 30 days from this day. The O.P. is further directed to refund the excess of Rs.25/- (Rs 310 – Rs 285= Rs.25/-) to the complainant and to discontinue the said Unfair Trade Practice and not to repeat such activities any further.
The terms and conditions of this order as to the restriction as to practice so imposed is to be complied with by the O.P. as aforesaid from this day and the payment of award, so ordered, to be complied with by the O.P. within 30 days hereof. In default of which the O.P. shall have to pay Rs.50/- for each day’s delay and such amount if accumulated shall be deposited in State Consumer Welfare Fund and the complainant shall be at liberty to realize the awarded compensation and cost by putting this order into execution in accordance with law.
Let copy of this final order be supplied to the parties free of cost forthwith in terms of Sec.5(10) of West Bengal Consumer Protection Act 1987.
Let a copy of this order also be send to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Jalpaiguri, Regional Office for information and necessary action.
