<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 30.10.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 20th NOVEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2329/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.S.Mukram Pasha,S/o S.Athaulla,Aged 32 years,R/a No.17, 3rd Cross,Nehru Road, Old Guddadahalli,Bangalore – 560026.Advocate – Sri.A.N.GangadharaiahV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Big Bazar,Byatarayanapura,Mysore Road,Bangalore.By its Manager.<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant on 29.08.2008 purchased “Complan Health Drink” from OP. OP charged Rs.144/- even though MRP on the pack mentioned is Rs.140/-. When complainant questioned the said mistake OP gave evasive replies. Again on 01.09.2008 complainant purchased the said Drink from OP. On that day also OP collected Rs.144/- as against MRP Rs.140/- but gave discount of Rs.4/- and issued the bill. Again complainant felt the unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Complainant made repeated requests and demands to OP to rectify the mistake and compensate him, it went in futile. He even issued the legal notice on 09.09.2008. Again there was no response. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notice was sent to OP by hand as prayed. OP refused to accept the notice. Complainant filed an affidavit to that effect. The service of notice on OP is held sufficient. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that he went to OP Big Bazar and purchased “Complan Health Drink” on 29.08.2008 though MRP noted on the pack was Rs.140/-. OP collected Rs.144/- and issued the bill. That bill is produced. Complainant questioned the OP about the excessive charge. There was no proper reply. Again on 01.09.2008 complainant visited the OP Bazar and purchased the same “Complan Health Drink”. Again OP collected Rs.144/- as against MRP Rs.140/- but gave a discount of Rs.4/- and issued the bill. That bill is also produced.<br /> <br /> 5. At the time of arguments complainant has brought the said “Complan Health Drink” pocket which clearly indicates MRP as Rs.140/- but whereas the bills issued by the OP clearly speaks to the collection of Rs.144/-. This is a standing example of unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Complainant did approach the OP to rectify the mistake and compensate him, but it went in futile. He even got issued legal notice on 09.09.2008. Copy of the legal notice is produced. Again there was no response.<br /> <br /> 6. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent which finds the support from the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non appearance of the OP even after due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. Unfortunately OP stooped to the level of misleading its own customers and engaged in unfair trade practice and collecting excessive amount than that of MRP. <br /> <br /> 7. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove both deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances he is entitled for certain relief. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.500/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20th day of November 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br />