DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.385 of 09/10/2017
Decided on: 05/09/2019
Jagdish Singh son of Sh. Jagtar Singh, resident of village Seel, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.
….Complainant
Versus
1. Big Bazar ( Future Retail Ltd.) North Zone Office, Future Retail Office, 3rd Floor, Plot No.82, Sector 32, Near NIIT Corp. Office, Gurgaon-122—1 (Haryana) through its Managing Director.
2. Big Bazar (Future Retail Ltd.) Omaxe Mall, Mall Road, Patiala through its Manager.
….Opposite parties
Complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM
Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
Sh. B. S. Dhaliwal, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Adv. counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Gurpreet Singh Adv. counsel for Opposite parties
ORDER
B. S. Dhaliwal, MEMBER
1. The complainant Jagdish Singh (here-in-after referred as complainant) has filed the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (here-in-after referred as Act) against Big Bazar (here-in-after referred as opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated that the case of the complainant is that he purchased Danima Jera and Coconut Biscuits 300 gm alongwith other items from OP No.2 vide invoice/ retail No.0018664, Tr.45917, st. 3684 on 11/6/2017. The OPs specifically mentioned on the bill that “above prices are inclusive of all taxes, total saving and to discount over MRP and additional promotions”. OP No.2 charged Rs.130/- for Danima Jera and Coconut biscuits 300 gms. When the complainant reached home and checked the bill and items then it transpired that OP No.2 have charged excess amount of Rs.70/- over and above the actual price of Danima Jera and Coconut Biscuits 300 gms as the actual price/ MRP of Danima Jera and Coconut Biscuits 300 gms was Rs.60/-.
3. That the complainant was a regular customer of OPs store and OPs have not only breached the trust of the complainant but have also caused grave mental agony and trauma, as he is under impression that OPs might have earlier also charged excess amount over and above MRP from the complainant and as such, there is clear cut deficiency in services on their part.
4. That when the complainant approached OP No.2 and complained about it to OP No.2 then OP No.2 misbehaved with the complainant and abused him and refused to refund the excess amount. Due to the said malpractices and unfair trade practice, the complainant has been harassed and suffered from mental agony and harassment.
5. In the sequel of these facts, the complainant has filed this complainant with the following prayer:-
i) To refund the amount of Rs.70/- over charge.
ii) To pay compensation of Rs.80,000/-.
iii) To pay Rs.11000/- as costs of legal expenses.
6. Upon notice OPs appeared through their counsel.
7. Counsel for the OPs filed written statement taking preliminary objections that having denied all the averments, facts and allegations as stated in the complaint. It is stated that there is no cause of action arisen in favour of complainant. The complainant has created a false story by concocting, twisting and distorting the facts. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious being devoid of any merit and has been filed with a view to malign the credential and reputation of the OPs with dishonest intentions to detriment the reputation of OPs and to take illegal advantage being OPs a big shopping outlet.
8. On merits the OPs reiterated the facts as has been taken in the preliminary objections. It is specifically averred that the complainant has produced the packet of “Danima Punjabi Jera Biscuit” instead of “Danima jera and Coconut Biscuits” which was sold by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. In evidence the complainant tendered in to evidence Ex.CA his affidavit, Ex.C-1 original bill, Ex.C-2 photo copy of bill, Ex.C-3 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-4 & Ex.C-5 original postal receipts, Ex.C-6 original packet of biscuits and closed the evidence.
10. The ld. Counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Amit Kumar Jha, Authorized Representative of OPs and closed the evidence.
11. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
12. Ld. counsel for the parties have reiterated their contentions as pleaded in their respective pleadings. The ld. Counsel for the OPs specifically contended that Ex.C-6 the original packet of biscuits is not the same which was sold by the OPs vide invoice Ex.C-1. The complainant has produced the product of biscuits “Danima Punjabi Jera Biscuits” whereas OPs had sold “Danima Jera coconut Biscuits” which fact is corroborated by Ex.C-1, the bill issued by OPs for the purchase of various other items also. At the time of initial stage of the case in this Forum, the product in question was kept in safe envelop which was opened in the open court during the course of arguments. After its opening we minutely examined from every angle vis a vis the bill issued for the sale of the same. The bare perusal of Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 reveals that the OPs had sold one “Danima Jera & Coconut 300 gm” for Rs.130/- whereas it is engraved on the sealed packet as “Danima Punjabi Jera Biscuits” When it is tallied with the bill Ex.C-1, it is surfaced that the OPs had sold “Danima Jera & Coconut Biscuits” whereas the product produced before this Forum is of “Danima Punjabi Jera Biscuits”. Therefore, it is to be determined as to whether the complainant has produced on record the item purchased vide invoice Ex.C-1 which is the root cause of the case. The perusal of Ex.C-6 reveals that the packet Ex.C-6 contains “Punjabi Jera Biscuits” which were not purchased by the complainant as per bill Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2. Therefore in the absence of purchased product vide bill Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2 i.e. “Danima Jera & Coconut 300”, it can not be concluded that OPs have over charged the alleged amount. Net conclusion is that the complainant has not brought on record the product in question i.e. “Danima Jera & Coconut 33” purchased by him through invoice Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2 and in the absence of that product he could not prove the alleged over charging.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the complaint is dismissed.
14. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
15. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
PRONOUNCED
DATED: 05/09/2019
B. S. DHALIWAL INDERJEET KAUR
MEMBER MEMBER
