DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.294 of 28.7.2017

                                      Decided on:           24.7.2019

Jasleen Kaur W/o Sukhjinder Singh # 74, Nattan Street, Sheran Wala Gate, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Big Bazar (Future Retail Ltd.) Omaxe Mall, The Mall Road, Patiala, through its Manager.

2.       Big Bazar Future Retail Office,         Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar of Jogeshwari-          Vikroli Link Road          Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai-400060, through its Director.

3.       Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd., C-31, Sector 6, Noida-201307 through its Consumeer Services Manager

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt.Inderjeet Kaur, Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member                                   

ARGUED BY:

                             Sh.Sukhjinder Singh,Advocate, Counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.Maninder Pal Singh Sahi, Advocate, Counsel for

                             OPs No.1&2.

                             OP No.3 Ex-parte.        

 ORDER

                                    B.S.DHALIWAL, MEMBER

1. This  complaint is filed by Jasleen Kaur   (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Big Bazar (Future Retail Ltd.) and others (hereinafter referred to as OPs) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that on 12.7.2017, she has purchased  one item from the store of OP No.1. That item she purchased was Haldiram’s Moong Dal for Rs.51/- but after purchasing, when she came back home, she noticed about MRP of Haldiram’s moong dal, which was mentioned on its packing was Rs.49/- which was sold to her for Rs.51/- by the OP No.1. There is a difference of Rs.2/- which she paid above the MRP.
3. It is contended that the complainant approached OP No.1 and informed about the such malpractice and unfair trade practice and requested OP No.1 to pay back the extra amount  which has been charged i.e. of Rs.2/- and also demanded the compensation on account of harassment and payment made in good faith but all in vain and OP No.1 did not care about the request of the complainant and straight away refused to hear the request of the complainant and told the complainant that we are not giving back any charged money or any compensation to you and told to the complainant that the MRP on the packing sold to her is Rs.51/- but the complainant told to OP No.1 that there is a MRP of Rs.49/- and MRP of Rs.51/- for Assam and North East states but OP No.1 did not care about the request of the complainant and refused to refund the extra charged amount of Rs.2/- and refused to pay any compensation.
4. It is further contended that the complainant and her family is the regular customer of the OP’s and she used to purchase the items near about Rs.7000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month from many years, so if there is so much difference in one item then there is likelihood of difference in items of previous bills also. Due to the said malpractice in trade and unfair trade practices, complainant is harassed and suffering from mental pain and agony.
5. On these background of facts, the complainant has filed this complaint with following prayers:

1. To pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.
2. To pay Rs.15000/- as the costs of litigation .
3. To pay Rs.15000/- on account of mental harassment, agony and tension.
4. To pay Rs.15000/- on account of punitive damages.
5. To refund Rs.2/- on account of charge above the MRP alongwith intertest @18% per annum.

6. Upon notice OPs No.1&2 appeared through counsel. OP No.3 did not put appearance despite service and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
7. Counsel for the OPs No.1&2 filed the written statement taking preliminary objections having denied all the averments, facts and allegations as stated in the complaint. It is stated that there is no cause of action arisen in favour of complainant .The complainant has created a false story by concocting, twisting and distorting the facts. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious being devoid of any merit and has been filed with a view to malign the credential and reputation of the OPs with dishonest intentions to detriment the reputation of OPs and to take illegal advantage. It is stated that OP is big shopping outlet where the prices of goods are fed in computer system which are scanned at the time of billing vide their bar code, however, if any mistake occurred due to some technical problem, the OP correct it when it comes to the notice of the OP. In the present case the OP was always ready to refund the over charged amount to the complainant, if any, as it was due to the technical fault of computer system. The OP asked the complainant to bring the original bill in which the overcharging has been done by the OP, but the complainant never presented the original bill to the OP as he was not ready to get the amount refunded and has filed the present false and frivolous complaint without any cause of action. The OP has first time received the copy of the bill in this complaint and is ready to refund the amount.
8. On merits, the OPs reiterated the facts as have been taken in the preliminary objections and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
9. In evidence, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidenceEx.CA, affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Ex.C1 original bill dated 12.7.2017, Exs.C2 to C4 photographs of the product and closed the evidence of the complainant.
10. The ld. counsel for OPs tendered in evidence, Ex.OPA affidavit of Amit Kumar Jha, Authorized representative of the OPs and closed the evidence.
11. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
12. Ld. counsel for the parties have reiterated their contentions as pleaded in their respective pleas. The counsel for the complainant relied upon the order  dated 11.2.2019 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, passed in F.A No.677 of 2018 , Gurmeet Singh Vs. Big Bazar and another.Ex.C1 is the copy of invoice, whereby the complainant has purchased one packet of Haldiram’s moongdal for which OP No.1  charged Rs.51/- from the complainant. Ex.C2 is the photograph of the packet on which the price is mentioned as Rs.49/- which shows that the OP No.1 has charged Rs.2/- in excess from the complainant. In spite of the request made by the complainant to OP No.1  failed to refund the same and as such indulged in unfair trade practice.
13. OPs No.1&2 have admitted the fact that the complainant purchased the product in question from OP No.1 and it is also an admitted fact that it charged Rs.2/- extra from the complainant. The only plea taken by replying OPs that OP is big shopping outlet where the prices of goods are feeded in the computer system. However, if any mistake occurs due to technical problem, OP rectified it when it comes to it’s knowledge. As per Ex.C2 the price of the item in dispute is clearly printed as Rs.49/- and for the states of Assam and North East State, it is Rs.51/-.A consumer has to be charged a price as printed on the product. Charging from consumer in excess of MRP of the product amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the seller i.e. OP No.1.
14. Not only that the OP No.1 adopted unfair trade practice, it has not realized the committed lapse before this “Forum” in any manner. The unfair trade practice adopted by the OP No.1 has been repeated in the case of complainant. In the identical case i.e. Consumer Complaint No.343 of 08.09.2017, OP No.1 charged Rs.2/- in respect of the same commodity and this “Forum” penalized the OP No.1. Further in ibid complaint during the First Appeal No.677 of 2018 decided by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab enhanced the penalty vide it’s order dated 11.2.2019.
15. Now a days Big Bazar stores have become very popular within the people and large number of people go there on daily basis or even more on week end days.  If one consumer is charged the amount of Rs.2/- over and above the MRP on one product, one can understand enormity of unfair trade practice adopted by OP No.1.Unfair trade practice is a grave and serious matter effecting the large number of consumer and therefore, the compensation has to be awarded in proportionate to its gravity so as to make OPs No.1&2 realize that they are bound to pay for the mal practices adopted by them.
16. Thus allowing the complaint, we direct the OPs No.1&2 as under:

1. To pay Rs.2/- as refund towards the over charged of MRP.
2. To pay another sum of Rs.5000/-as compensation inclusive of costs for causing harassment, inconvenience and mental torture including litigation expenses to the complainant
3. OPs No.1&2 are also burdened with Rs.10,000/-as punitive measure which shall be deposited by them in the Army welfare Fund Battle Casualities as per the details of bank account given below:

Fund Name: Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualities

Branch Name:Syndicate Bank

Branch Code:9055

IFSC Code:SYNB0009055

Account No.:90552010165915

17. OPs No.1&2 jointly or severally will comply the aforesaid order within 45 days  from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order.
18. The complaint filed against OP No.3 is however dismissed being devoid of  merits.
19. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.
20. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:24.7.2019.                                          

                                           B.S.DHALIWAL                  INDERJEET KAUR

                                           MEMBER                              MEMBER