| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/15/129 of 23.6.2015 Decided on: 17.11.2015 Madan Mohan S/o Sh.Ashok Kumar, House No.69, Joginder Nagar, Patiala-147001(97810-42942) …………...Complainant Versus 1. Bharti Retail Limited, Registered Office at Bharti Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road Vasant Kunj, Phase-2,New Delhi-110070. 2. Bharti Retail Limited(Easyday),SCO 15,16,17, Opposite Amar Hospital, Leela Bhawan Road, Patiala-147001, through its Manager. …………….Ops Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member Present: For the complainant: Smt.Monica, authorized representative For Ops No.1&2: Sh.Dhiraj Puri,Advcocate ORDER D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT - It is alleged by the complainant that Op no.2, a dealer of Op no.1 is carrying on the business of various consumer products. On 2.6.2015, the complainant visited Op no.2 and purchased the household goods vide bill dated 2.6.2015 for Rs.1200.74. When the complainant reached his house, he checked the bill. He found the price of “Boost Elevate Sachet” charged at Rs.30/- as against the price of Rs.28/- given on the packet and thus Op no.4 charged Rs.2/- in excess over and above of the MRP. Even on the display counter the same price of Rs.28/- was shown. The complainant had purchased six sachet of Boost Elevate and thus Op no.4 charged Rs.12/- in excess.
- It is further averred that on the same day i.e. on 2.6.2015 he had purchased two bottles of P-Marka Mustard oil from Op no.2 for which he was charged Rs.115/- per bottle i.e. Rs.230/- for two bottles although on the display list the price of the same was shown at Rs.110/- per bottle and thus Op no.2 charged Rs.10/-in excess.
- On noticing the said discrepancy in the price of the aforesaid products, the complainant visited Op no.2 on 2.6.2015 itself at 3:00PM although it was a hot season and met the executive at the store and brought the said discrepancies to his notice. However, the official at the store of Op no.2 refused to rectify the mistake and to refund the excess amount charged from the complainant and explained that the amount was reflected in their computer system and it was charged accordingly. He was asked to go out of store immediately. The complainant with the help of his mobile phone took the snaps of the price of the Boost sachet from the display list qua the price of the mustard oil, the copies of the same being Annexures C2 and C3.
- It is further averred that the Ops failed to redress the grievance of the complainant and thus the act of the Ops is said to be a fraud on the general public, an unfair trade practice as also a deficiency in service, for which he is entitled to a compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to pay him Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment and mental agony experienced by him; to refund him Rs.22/-( Rs.10+12) charged in excess on account of the purchase of the aforesaid two products i.e. Boost elevate and mustered oil and to pay him Rs.20000/- towards the costs of the complaint.
- The cognizance of the complaint was taken against the Ops, who on appearance filed the written version. The Ops admitted the complainant having purchased the items from Op no.2 vide bill dated 2.6.2015 for Rs.1200.74.All the goods in the store of the Ops were displayed on the respective counters alongwith their price tags. Even on 2.6.2015 sachets with the price of Rs.28/- i.e. of the old packing and Rs.30/- i.e. of new packing had been displayed. The prices of the goods were generated in the computer systematically by the cashier with the help of the bar code given on the product. The Ops never charged the excess amount of Rs.2/- for any sachet. Similarly it is averred that both the packets of P-Marka mustard oil for the price of Rs.110/- i.e. old packing and of Rs.115/- i.e. new packing had been displayed on the counter and the price of the same were generated in the computer by the cashier systematically with the help of the bar code.
- It is further averred by the Ops that the complainant produced the Annexures C2 and C3, the photographs of the sachets of the Boost and of the mustered oil but he has not produced the sachets or packets of the boost or mustard oil.
- The Ops have denied the complainant having visited the executive of the store on the day of the purchase to bring to light the discrepancies and rather he had approached Op no.2 on the next day and took the photographs of the displayed products and also used filthy language. It is also denied that the officials of the Ops refused to rectify the error or to refund the excess amount and rather the complainant had threatened the Ops to falsely implicate them. The Ops have never committed any fraud with the general public nor there was any deficiency of service on their part. After controverting the other allegations of the complaint, going against the Ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C3 and his authorized representative closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Abhishek Kumar, authorized signatory of Op no.2 alongwith document Ex.OP1 and closed their evidence.
- The parties failed to file the written arguments.We have heard the representative of the complainant, counsel for the Ops and also gone through the evidence on record.
- The Ops have not denied the complainant having purchased the goods vide retail invoice/receipt Ex.C1 from op no.2 on 2.6.2015 including six sachets of Boost Elevate for Rs.180/- and two bottles of P Marka Mustard Oil for Rs.230/-. The plea taken up by the Ops is that on the date of the sale, the sachets with the price tag of Rs.28/- i.e. the old packing and the new packing with the price of Rs.30/- were on display at the counters and similar is the plea taken up by the Ops with regard to the bottles of P-Marka mustard oil. Even if, we believe the plea of the Ops that the Boost Elevate sachets bearing the MRP of Rs.28/- and the mustard seed oil bottles bearing the MRP of Rs.110/- were on display , we fail to understand as to how the Ops could charge the new rates of Rs.30/- in respect of the Boost Elevate Sachets and Rs.115/- in respect of the mustard seed oil on the basis of the MRP given on the new packings/bottles. A consumer has to be charged the price as printed on the product. Here, it may be noted that when the complaint was filed, the complainant had not produced the empty sachets as also the empty P-Marka mustard oil bottles and we got the same produced on the next date. Out of six pouches four pouches bore batch No.18JC 2H(00:34) while the two other pouches bore batch No.04JA2H (06:32) and the pouches were bearing MRP as Rs.28/-. Similarly the complainant produced the two empty bottles of P Mark,Kachi Ghani Mustard Oil, manufactured by Puri Oil Mills, Registered Office:302,Jyoti Shikhar Building, District Center 8,Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058 bearing the batch No.169, date of packing as 22.4.2015 and MRP as Rs.127/-. In that way we observed that the complainant was charged less amount than MRP in respect of the mustard oil and accordingly we had not found any unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops in respect of the mustard oil.
- It was simply submitted by Sh.Dhiraj Puri, the learned counsel for the Ops that the complainant failed to produce the empty sachets of Boost Elevate during the course of the evidence and therefore, the Ops have been deprived of the opportunity to examine the same. The said submissions made by the learned counsel for the Ops do not carry any weight because the empty pouches were produced by the complainant before the Forum at the time of the admission of the complaint and the same were ordered to be kept alongwith the empty bottles of the mustard oil by the Ahlmad in a container duly paper sealed under our signatures. On the request of the counsel for the Ops, we got the container produced bearing the paper seal under our signatures and when the same was opened the same was found having contained six empty pouches and two empty mustard oil bottles bearing the particulars as noted above and on the examination of the same, the learned counsel for the Ops could not raise any point and again repeated his submission that the same were not produced in evidence.
- We have considered the submissions and are of the considered view that the non production of the sachets in evidence has not prejudiced the Ops in any manner because it is a summary procedure and in case the Ops had any doubt about the case of the complainant, they could get the empty sachets produced. The failure on their part to do so means that they had no doubt about the case of the complainant. In any case the empty sachets were produced by the complainant at the time of the admission of the complaint as discussed above. The fact of the matter is that the ops charged Rs.30/- for each sachet of Boost Elevate i.e. Rs.2/- in excess in respect of each sachet and the same amounted to an unfair trade practice.
- It is the case of the complainant that he brought the matter regarding the unfair trade practice to the notice of Op no.2 on the day of the purchase but he was not refunded the amount charged in excess. We can understand that the Op charged Rs.12/- in excess from the complainant. It is provided under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act as under:
- “14.Finding of the District Forum.-(1) If, after the proceeding conducted under section 13 , the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are provided, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to 1[do] one or more of the following things, namely:-
(a) (b) (c) (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party. 1[Provided that the District Forum shall have the power to grant punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit]” - No doubt the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.12/- only on account of unfair trade practice adopted by the Ops but in such like cases the Forum has got the powers under the proviso given to Section 14(1)(d) to grant the punitive damages to a consumer. Op no.1 is a big retail store company doing the business throughout India and therefore, such type of unfair trade practice on the part of such like companies has to be dealt with a heavy hand. Therefore, taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we accept the complaint and direct the Ops to refund Rs.12/- charged in excess from the complainant and further to pay a sum of Rs.35000/- by way of punitive damages, out of which Rs.15000/- will be paid to the complainant and the same is inclusive of the costs of the complaint and the remaining Rs.20,000/- will be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid account of the Forum. The order be complied by the Ops within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Pronounced Dated:17.11 .2015 Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta D.R.Arora Member Member President | |
