Delhi

North

CC/356/2022

DHEERAJ JANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIG BAZAAR - Opp.Party(s)

29 Mar 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No. 356 of 2022

In the matter of

Dheeraj Jani         

S/o Shimbhu Ram

R/o 103/E, DDA Flats

Gulabi Bagh, New Delhi-110007                                   ………Complainant

 

Versus

Big Bazaar

(Future Retail Ltd)

Parsavnath Metro Mall

DMRC Station, Inder Lok

New Delhi-1100052

Also at

Big Bazaar (Future Group)

Head Office-Knowledge House

Shyam Nagar, Off. Jogesgwari -Vikhroli

Link Road, Jogeshwari East Mumbai-400060                …      Opposite Party

 

ORDER
29/03/2023

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

Jurisdiction of this Commission has been invoked by the complainant        Sh. Dheeraj Jani, against Big Bazaar, OP with the allegations of unfair trade practice. 

1. Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that on 10/04/2021, the complainant, who is also an advocate, purchased grocery items from Big Bazaar, Inderlok Metro Station, Delhi for a sum of Rs.2710.93.  It has been stated by the complainant that upon  reaching home, when he checked the bill and found that one of the item “GH Star Anise” 50 gm was charged at Rs.102 instead of MRP of Rs. 76/- .
2. On the next day, the Complainant approached OP for redressal of his grievance but the amount charged in excess of the MRP was not returned.  On 12/04/2021, the Senior Manager of the OP informed the complainant that it was a minor mistake so they cannot do anything.  The Complainant has further stated that he had posted about the incidence on Twitter, however, the matter was not resolved. It has also been stated that failure on the part of the OP to refund Rs. 26/- with interest has caused mental agony, harassment and economic loss.  The complainant has prayed for directions to OP to refund Rs. 26/- along with interest @12% p.a.; compensation of                Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment;  Rs.50,000/- on account of unfair trade practice and Rs.30,000/- as cost of litigation. 

 

3. The complainant has annexed a copy of the invoice dated 10/04/2021 issued by the OP as Annexure P-1; copy of packet bearing MRP as Annexure P-2 and screen shot of the Twitter Web App, with the complaint.

 

4. The notice of the present complaint was issued to the OP, which was duly served to the Head Office of OP.  Despite service, there was no appearance on behalf of the OP, hence they were proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 25/11/2022. 
5. Ex-parte evidence has been filed by the complainant, where the contents of the complaint have been repeated.  In support of his allegations, he has relied upon the Annexure P-1 & Annexure P-2. 
6. We have heard the submission made by the complainant and have gone through the written arguments.  The complainant has approached this Commission with the allegations that he was over charged by the OP. In support of his case he has filed the photocopy of the packet of the product (Annexure P-2). It is clearly evident as per Annexure P-2 that the MRP of the product was Rs.76/- , whereas the OP has charged Rs.102/- as evident from the Annexure P-1 i.e. the bill. Thus, it is clear that the OP had overcharged Rs. 26/- from the Complainant from the Maximum Retail Price (MRP).This act of overcharging by the OP definitely amounts to unfair trade practice.
7. The complainant has placed on record the judgement of Hon’ble NCDRC, titled as Arindam Kar vs Proprietor, Rupashi Cinema Hall (2017) SCC online NCDRC 1621.  The facts of the judgment relied upon by the complainant are different as in that case the bill was not issued for the purchase, which is not so in the present complaint.
8. The Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.50,000/- on account of unfair trade practice. However, we feel that Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a welfare-legislation and it is enacted for the benefit of the Consumers. It is a settled law that the Complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is meant for saving consumer from being exploited and it is not meant for windfall gains. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is not meant to be a used as a tool for wrongful gains. The compensation sought by the Complainant is              dis-appropriately high and nothing on record has been filed to justify the same. In our opinion, prayer for high compensation and cost without proper justification by the Complainant herein is incorrect and is required to be discouraged. For this, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta vs. Vodafone East Limited [FA 847/2017 decided on 05.10.2018]. 

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and interest of justice, we direct OP to refund Rs.26/- along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 10/04/2021 till realisation. We further award compensation of Rs. 500/-on account of mental agony and harassment.  The order be complied within 30 days, else the above awarded amount shall be payable with interest @6% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member

(Ashwani Kumar Mehta) Member

 

                            

 

(DivyaJyotiJaipuriar)

                 President