Haryana

Ambala

CC/122/2022

Paramjeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bata Shoe Store - Opp.Party(s)

Varun Kaushal

23 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.:  122 of 2022.

                                                          Date of Institution    :   12.04.2022.

                                                          Date of decision    :   23.08.2022.

 

Paramjeet Kaur Wd/o Shri Balbir Singh, r/o 547, Sonia Colony, Ambala City.

 

                                                                                       …. Complainant.                                                    Versus

Bata Shoe Store 19, Prem Nagar, Ambala City, through its Store Manager/Authorized person.

                    …. Opposite Party.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri H.S. Baidwan, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

OP already ex parte.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’), praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To pay/refund Rs.37/-, charged on account of GST.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. To pay future interest @ 18% per annum, to the complainant till the realisation of total amount of Rs.65,037/-.
   382.  

Grant any other relief, which the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

2.                In nutshell, the brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one pair of shoes of Brand Bata vide bill No.CM3685220000120 dated 02.04.2022 from the OP at MRP of Rs.549/- and the same was mentioned on the box of the shoes and also on the price tag. After purchase of shoes, complainant calculated the total amount of bill and found that the OP had charged excess amount from her, because MRP of shoes was Rs.549/-, but the OP charged Rs.586/-. Complainant immediately asked the sales man about the reason of extra charge and the said salesman told her that he has charged Rs.37/- as GST. Complainant told the said salesman that he cannot charge more than MRP, which is inclusive of all taxes.  He requested the said salesman to rectify the bill but he refused to do so. By charging extra amount of Rs.37/-, the OP has not only committed deficiency in service, but has also indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.

3.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.05.2022.

4.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 & C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file.

6.                The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant purchased one pair of shoes, vide bill dated 02.04.2022, Annexure C-1, from the OP and it charged Rs.586/-. Whereas from the Annexure C-2, it is clear that the MRP of the shoes was Rs.549/-. As such, OP charged Rs.37/-, extra from the complainant. By charging, the said amount of Rs.37/-, extra, from the complainant, the OP has not only committed deficiency in service but has also indulged into unfair trade practice. This contention of the complainant went un-rebutted as the OP inspite of service of the notice has preferred not to appear before this Commission. Meaning thereby, OP has nothing to say in its defence, and thus, we have no reason to disbelieve the version of the version of the complainant, which is duly supported by her affidavit and other supporting documents. From the perusal of Annexure C-2, it is evident that the Maximum Retail Price of the one pair footwear bearing article No.571-9606 is Rs.549/-, inclusive of all taxes. From the perusal of invoice dated 02.04.2022 Annexure C-1, it is evident that the MRP of the one paid of footwear bearing article No. 5719606050 has been mentioned as Rs.586/-. In this way, the OP has charged Rs.37/-, in excess from the complainant on account of MRP and is thus held guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice. Therefore, it is liable to refund the said amount of Rs.37/-, to the complainant and is also liable to compensate the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment to her alongwith litigation expenses.

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:-

1. To refund Rs.37/-, being overcharged on account of MRP, to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

The OP is further directed to comply with the order within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 23.08.2022.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)     (Ruby Sharma)            (Neena Sandhu)                

    Member                           Member                      President