Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/378

Mangat Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Retail Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

02 Jun 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :          378

Date of Institution:      26.12.2016

Date of Decision :       2.06.2017

 

Mangat Arora Advocate aged 51 years, District Courts, Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Bharti Retail Pvt ltd. 2^nd Floor, Central Plaza, Sector 53, Gurgaon, Near Golf Course Road.
2. Easy Day Store of  Bharti Retail Ltd at Circular Road, Faridkot.

                                            ....Opposite parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Sh. P. Singla, Member.

 

Present:      Sh. Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh. A  S Virdi, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                 Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses.

2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 19.11.2016,  complainant visited the Easy Day Store of Ops for purchasing some items and before making purchases, he asked the sales man of Ops regarding acceptance of debit card and on assurance of  salesman that debit or credit card is acceptable, complainant selected some items worth Rs.703/-, but payment could not be made due to faulty machine. Despite several attempts made by salesman of Ops, faulty machine did not read the debit card of HDFC Bank of complainant  and ultimately sales man of Ops told complainant that net work is not proper. Complainant asked sales man of Ops to accept old notes of Rs.500/- or Rs. 1000/- denomination in lieu of items purchased, but he refused to accept the same. Then, complainant approached Incharge of Store namely Samir Kumar, who was also not  helpful and cooperative and refused to render any help. Thus, complainant had to return empty handed without articles due to faulty machine and for not maintaining their equipments properly. Complainant also issued legal notice dated 24.11.2016, but instead of admitting their fault, Ops blamed the complainant. All this act of Ops has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant. It amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops. He has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  instant complaint.

3                                            The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 3.01.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to OPs.

 4                                               OPs filed reply taking preliminary objections that no cause of action arises against answering Ops and complaint is an abuse of process of law. It is averred that complainant has attempted to misguide the Hon’ble Forum by filing false complaint. he has created a false story as there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. It is  admitted that when complainant visited the store of answering Ops, the e- payment machine was not working properly due to some technical error, which was beyond the control of Ops as it might have been caused due to network problem or slow server etc.  It is further averred that as many people visit their store for their daily needs and every transaction takes time for billing, payment and receipt of purchased items and thus, time taken by staff of Ops in normal course of business can not be considered as harassment to the consumer. It is also asserted that as per Demonetization Policy, old currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- were not valid and that is why Ops did not accept the same and there is no  deficiency in service on the part of Ops. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are totally denied being wrong and incorrect and also denied that their salesman gave assurance for acceptance of debit or credit card. It is asserted that Ops provide best services and payment is accepted both in cash as well as through debit or credit cards. However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated the pleadings taken in preliminary objection and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs.

5                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                   In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant,     ld Counsel for OP-1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Vikas Kumar as Ex OP-1 and document Ex OP-2 and then, closed the same on behalf of OPs.

7                                                  We have heard the counsel for complainant as well as for Ops and have carefully gone through the record available on file.

8                                                     Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that on 19.11.2016, complainant visited the Easy Day Store of Ops for purchasing some items and before making purchases, he asked the sales man of Ops regarding acceptance of debit card and on assurance of  salesman that debit or credit card is acceptable, complainant selected some items worth Rs.703/-, but payment could not be made due to faulty machine. Despite several attempts made by salesman of Ops, faulty machine did not read the debit card of HDFC Bank of complainant  and ultimately sales man of Ops told complainant that net work is not proper. Complainant asked sales man of Ops to accept old notes of Rs.500/- or Rs. 1000/- denomination in lieu of items purchased, but he refused to accept the same. Then, complainant approached Incharge of Store namely Samir Kumar, who was also not  helpful and cooperative and refused to render any help. Thus, complainant had to return empty handed without articles due to faulty machine and for not maintaining their equipments properly. Complainant also issued legal notice dated 24.11.2016, but instead of admitting their fault, Ops blamed the complainant. All this act of Ops has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant. It amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops. He has prayed accepting the complaint.

9                                                     Ld Counsel for OPs have repelled all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that no cause of action arises against answering Ops and complaint is an abuse of process of law. It is averred that complainant has attempted to misguide the Hon’ble Forum by filing false complaint. He has created a false story as there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. However, it is  admitted by Ops that when complainant visited the store of answering Ops, the e-payment  machine was not working properly due to some technical error, which was beyond their control as it might have been caused due to network problem or slow server etc.  It is further averred that as many people visit their store for their daily needs and every transaction takes time for billing, payment and receipt of purchased items and thus, time taken by staff of Ops in normal course of business can not be considered as harassment to the consumer. It is also asserted that as per Demonetization Policy, old currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- were not valid and that is why Ops did not accept the same and there is no  deficiency in service on the part of Ops. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are totally denied being wrong and incorrect and also denied that their salesman gave assurance for acceptance of debit or credit card. It is asserted that Ops provide best services and payment is accepted both in cash as well as through debit or credit cards. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10                                                               We have heard both the counsel and also gone through the pleadings and evidence by both the parties. The case of the complainant is that on assurance of salesman of Ops that debit or credit cards are acceptable for making payment, complainant purchased some articles worth Rs.703/-from their showroom, but at the time of making payment, billing machine of Ops did not read the  debit card of complainant, which is issued by HDFC Bank. Compliant made several requests to salesman and also to Incharge for accepting the old denomination notes of R.500/- or Rs.1000/-, but they did not  accept his genuine request. Ops wasted precious time of complainant and he had to reach home empty handed due to faulty machine and non cooperative behaviour of Ops. Issuance of legal notice to Ops also bore no fruit, as instead of accepting the fault and deficiency in service, they blamed complainant.  in reply, Ops admitted before the Forum that complainant visited their showroom for making some purchases and at the time of making payment, their machine got out of order and could not read the debit card of complainant, but they allege that fault in their billing machine was beyond their control. It is also stressed that due to Demonetization Policy, they refused to accept the currency notes of Rs.500/-and Rs.1000/-. Other allegation are denied with prayer to dismiss the complaint.

11.                                      To prove his case, complainant has stressed on his affidavit Ex C-1, which reiterates the pleadings of complainant. Ex C-2 copy of legal notice issued by complainant to OPs also proves the grievance of complainant, which he met due to poor services of O Ps. ExC-5 is the reply to legal notice sent by Ops to complainant, wherein they indirectly admit that their machine was faulty.

12                                           We are fully convinced with the evidence, arguments and pleadings of Counsel for the complainant. This Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops in not making proper arrangement of billing system to avoid inconvenience to customers. Had there been sufficient availability of billing machines, there should have been no harassment to complainant and even precious time of complainant could have been saved. The complainant succeeds in proving this case, so the present complaint in hand is allowed. The Ops are directed to provide efficient services and to keep their equipments in order. They are further directed to pay Rs.3000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment suffered and litigation expenses. Ops are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 2.06.2017

 

                                        Member                               President

                                       (P Singla)                              (Ajit Aggarwal)