Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/278

Kunal Gaurav Bajaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Retail Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

21 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 278 of 24.04.2015

Date of Decision            :   21.07.2016 

 

Kunal Gaurav Bajaj son of Sh.S.P.Bajaj, resident of H.No.173-R, Model Town, Ludhiana. 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.Bharti Retail Limited, (Easyday), Plot No.49, Corp. No.B-18, 3671, Kochar Market, South Model Gram, Ludhiana through its Owner/Store Manager/Authorized Representatives.

2.Bharti Crescent, 1, Nelson Manderal Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi through its Chairman/C.E.O./Authorized representatives) (Registered Office).

…Opposite parties 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

MRS.          BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :          In person

For OPs                          :          Sh.Nitin Kapila, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant purchased karyana goods for routine use of worth of Rs.3029/- on 1.3.2015 vide cash invoice No.1073002023001 dated 1.3.2015 from the store of OPs. After purchase of goods, complainant was astonished to see the bill that OPs have illegally over charged the price of consumer products namely Dettol Origin Soap Pack of three soaps. That charging was in excess of MRP. MRP of the Dettol Origin combo pack of three soaps is Rs.70/- as clearly stated on the packing of the product, but OPs charged Rs.73/- from the complainant. This over charging was intentional and deliberate and as such, the same is an unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. When the complainant called upon the OPs to refund the excess charged amount, then OPs flatly refused and even insulted the complainant for humiliating him. Complainant served a legal notice dated 26.3.2015 through counsel upon the OPs for calling upon them to charge the genuine amount from him in future. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.25,000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- claimed.

2.                In joint written statement filed by OPs, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complaint has been filed just for harassing the Ops; complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and intricate question of law and facts requiring elaborate evidence are involved, due to which, this Forum has no jurisdiction. Admittedly, OPs have number of retail chain stores in India and dealing in goods. Factum of purchase of articles by the complainant and issue of bill in question admitted. It is claimed that the complainant has failed to show any document to reflect the exact rate of product printed on it. In case, such product shown, then Ops reserved their right to file appropriate reply. Op company is known for best sale of products throughout the country. Each product is having separate bar code number and price of the specific product printed on it is picked by the computer system. There is lot of variation of the goods as per the scheme   viz-a-viz the fresh products added regularly. MRP of the product increases regularly with the quoted rates of the company, from which, the goods are purchased. Those rates are duly edited in the computer system, resulting in no mistake while picking up the bar code and rates of the products. Allegation of excess charging denied. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied, but by admitting that OP2 is maintaining its office at Delhi. Complainant has not given the name of the representatives or officials of OPs, who ever refused to refund the alleged over charged amount and did not listen to the complainant. No alleged threat was ever given by the OPs or its officials/representatives.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Kanwaldeep Singh, Store Manager and then closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone heard and records gone through minutely. 

6.                 Complainant has produced on record photographs Ex.C2 for showing that MRP printed on the combo pack of three Dettol Soaps is Rs.72/-. However, retail invoice Ex.C1 shows as if Rs.73/- were charged from the complainant for such combo pack of three Dettol Soaps in question on 1.3.2015. So, it is obvious that Rs.1/- in excess was charged from the complainant viz-a-viz the printed MRP on the product.

7.                Counsel for the OPs vehemently contends that deduction of the offered amount has been duly credited in Ex.C1. However, that deduction on the Dettol Soaps in question not credited to the complainant, even though such credits for offer on   other items has been done. So, submissions advanced by the counsel for the OPs has no force that actually Dettol soaps in question were sold on price less than the printed MRP. Documentary proof has been produced by the complainant to prove that Rs.1/- charged in excess of the MRP on the combo pack of three Dettol Soaps. OPs have not adduced any evidence to justify the charging of excess amount of Rs.1/- and as such, in view of excess charging of Rs.1/- against MRP, certainly, OPs proved to have indulged in unfair trade practice.

8.                Complainant as per his version through legal notice Ex.C3 and affidavit Ex.CA called upon the officials of OPs to refund the amount, but they insulted and humiliated him and as such, complainant entitled for compensation for mental harassment of Rs.1000/- only because he has separate remedy of filing complaint for defamation also. Complainant himself is an Advocate and as such, he has not spent much on litigation, due to which, nominal litigation expenses of Rs.1000/- alone allowed.

9.                As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OPs will refund excess charged amount of Rs.1/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Further, the complainant held entitled to compensation for mental harassment of Rs.1000/-, but to litigation expenses of Rs.1000/-. Payment of the amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made by the Ops to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Babita)                                        (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:21.07.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.