| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 266 of 10.7.2017 Decided on: 29.8.2018 Santoshi d/o Sh. Hari Singh r/o H.No.17, Maharani Club, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus 1. Big Bazar (Future Retail Ltd.) Omaxe Mall, Mall Road, Patiala, through its Manager. 2. Big Bazar Future Retail Office, Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar off Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai-400060, through its Director. …………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Puneet Jain,Advocate, counsel for complainant. Sh.Maninder Pal Singh Sahi,Advocate, counsel for OPs. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - Briefly, the case of the complainant is that on 30.4.2017 she purchased total 19 items from the store of OP no.1, out of which one item was Haldiram’s Moong Dal. The M.R.P. of the said items is mentioned as Rs.49/-. On coming back to home, she noticed that the OP charged Rs.51/- for the said item.She approached the OP for the unfair trade practice committed by it and also requested for refunding Rs.2/- charged in excess alongwith compensation on account of harassment but OP no.1 did not care and straight way refused to hear the request of the complainant. OP No.1 told that the MRP on the packing sold to her is Rs.51/- but the complainant apprised to OP no.1 that Rs.51/- is for Assam and North –East States but all in vain. Due to the said mal-practice in trade and unfair trade practice, complainant is harassed and ultimately he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986 with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to compensate her to the tune of Rs.1,75,000/-; to pay Rs.15000/- as the cost of litigation; to pay Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental harassment, agony and tension; to pay Rs.1,50,000/- on account of punitive damages and also to refund Rs.2/- charged extra alongwith interest @18% per annum. Hence this complaint.
- Upon notice,OPs appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement taking preliminary objections having denied all the allegations, facts and averments as stated in the complaint filed by the complainant. It is stated that the complainant has not presented true facts; that the present complaint is false, frivolous & vexatious being devoid of any merits and has been filed with a view to malign the credential & reputation of the OP with dishonest intentions to detriment the OP and to the illegal advantage to the complainant. It is stated that OP is big shopping outlet where the prices of goods are fed in computer systems which are scanned at the time of billing vide their code bar. However, if any mistake occurred due to some technical problem, the OP corrects it when it comes to the notice of the OP.It is denied that the complainant approached the OP with any complaint of overcharging. It is stated that due to an inadvertent error Rs.2/- was overcharged from the complainant and the OP is still ready to refund the said amount to the complainant. On merits, the OPs reiterated the facts as taken in the preliminary objections and have prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In evidence, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
- The ld. counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Sh.Amit Kumar Jha alongwith document Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased 19 items from OP no.2, out of which one item was Haldiram’s moong dal for which Op no.2 charged Rs.51/- from the complainant. Ex.C3 is the photo copy of the packet vide which the price of the item ismentioned as Rs.49/-, which shows that the OP charged Rs.2/- in excess from the complainant. The complainant requested the OP for refund of Rs.2/- but the OP failed to refund the same and it amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of OP no.2.
- The OPs have admitted the fact that the complainant purchased the product from Op no.2 and it is also an admitted fact that it charged Rs.2/- extra from the complainant. The only plea taken by the OPs is that OP is a big shopping outlet where the price of goods is feeded in computer system. However, if any mistake occurs due to technical problem, OP corrects it when it comes to its knowledge. As per Ex.C4, the price of the item in dispute is clearly written as Rs.49/- and for the state of Assam and North East States, it is Rs.51/-.A consumer has to be charged a price as printed on the product.Charging a consumer more than the MRP printed on the product, amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the seller i.e. the OP.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to the OPs to refund Rs.2/- charged in excess from the complainant and further to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.2000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. 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:29.8.2018 KANWALJEET SINGH NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER MEMBER | |
