DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

Consumer Complaint No.84 of 22/02/2019

Decided on: 25/09/2019

Ashok Kumar Bansal son of Sh. Kapoor Chand, aged about 41 years, resident of House No.951/4, Bagichi Het Ram, Sheran Wala Gate, Patiala.

                                                                      ….Complainant

                Versus

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

                                                                  ….Opposite Party.

Complaint U/S 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member

Sh. B. S. Dhaliwal, Member

ARGUED BY:

Sh. M. L. Sharma Adv. counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Amanpreet Singh Bawa Adv. counsel for Opposite party.

ORDER

B. S. Dhaliwal, MEMBER

1. The complainant Ashok Kumar Bansal (here-in-after referred as complainant) has filed the complaint u/s 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (here-in-after referred as Act) against Big Bazar (here-in-after referred as opposite party).

2. Briefly stated that the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased some fruits from OP vide bill No.7 memo No.0036133, Tr.16055, St.3684 dt.01/12/2018. The complainant checked the invoice and weighment slip and was surprised to see that on weighment slip the weight of banana was 0.885 Gms, unit price is Rs.35/- and upon weighment the payable amount was Rs.30.98, but in the invoice the OP has charged Rs.38.06/-. That the complainant called the Manager at customer care phone No.18002002255 and the Executive of OP advised to meet the Manager of the Big Bazaar at Omaxe Mall. The complainant met the Manager of OP who assured that matter will be solved with in twenty fourt hours and he will be informed on mobile to collect the refund. To resolve the dispute complainant again visited the shop of the OP and met the Manager but he did not bother and refused to refund the disputed amount.

3. It is contended that the act of the OP is a clear unfair trade practice and also amounts to deficiency in service and due to this complainant has suffered financially, mentally and physically and mental agony for which complainant is entitled for compensation.

4. In the sequel of these facts, the complainant has prayed for:-

i) To refund Rs.7/-.

ii) To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

iii) To pay Rs.5000/- as the cost and litigation charges to the complainant.

5. Upon notice OP appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written reply 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.

6. On merits, the purchase of the some fruits is admitted. However, it is submitted that the OPs company 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. OP was always ready to refund the over charged amount to the customers, which was due to technical fault of computer system or there is any variation in the bill vis a vis the product purchased. The complainant has never approached the OPs for the refund of the over charged alleged amount. After denying all the other averments made in the complaint, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

7. In evidence the complainant tendered in to evidence Ex.CA his affidavit, Ex.C-1 Copy of weighment slip, Ex.C-2 Copy of bill and closed the evidence.

8. Ld. Counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Amit Kumar Jha, Authorized Representative of OPs and closed the evidence.

9. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. They have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings. However, the ld. Counsel for the OPs emphatically contended that there was no over charging intentionally.

10. Ld. counsel for the complainant has reiterated the contentions as pleaded in the complaint. The counsel for the complainant relied upon the Order dt. 11.2.2019 passed by the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, in F.A. No.677 of 2018, Gurmeet Singh vs. Big Bazar and another. Ex.C-2 is the original invoice accompanied along with the photocopy of the same vide which the complainant has purchased Banana fruits for which OP has charged Rs.38.06/- from the complainant. Ex.C-1 is the copy of weighment slip on which the price of the product on the basis of weighment is written as Rs.30.98/-, which proves that the OP has charged Rs.7/- in excess from the complainant. In spite of the request made by the complainant, OP failed to refund the same and as such indulged in unfair trade practice and forced him to file this complaint.

11. OP has admitted the fact that the complainant purchased the product in question and it is also an admitted fact as per record that (OP) it has charged Rs.7/- extra from the complainant. The only plea taken by OP is 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 its knowledge. As per Ex.-2 the price of the item in dispute as per weightment is clearly printed as Rs.30.98/-. A consumer has to be charged a price as printed on the product. Charging from consumer in excess of actual price of the product amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other contentions of OP that invoice (Bill) provided by the complainant is neither clear nor legible is nullified with the fact that each and every entry in the bill (Ex.C-2) weightment slip dt.01/12/2018 are quite clear and are in readable position. The contention of OP that over charging was not intentional is not a genuine excuse and carries no waitage because inspite of efforts by the complainant to get refund from OP yielded to results.

12. Not only that the OP adopted unfair trade practice, it has not realized the committed lapse before this “Forum” in any manner. The unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs has been repeated not only in the case of complainant even in other such cases also. In a case i.e. Consumer Complaint No.343 of 08.09.2017, OP charged Rs.2/- in respect of the Moongdal and this “Forum” penalized the OP. Further in the First Appeal NO.677 of 2018, in the ibid complaint, the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab enhanced the penalty vide order dt.11/2/2019.

13. 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.7/- over and above the MRP on one product, one can understand enormity of unfair trade practice adopted by OP. 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 OP realize that they are bound to pay for the mal practices adopted by them.

14. Thus allowing the complaint, we direct the OP as under:-

i) To pay Rs.7/- as refund towards the over charging of MRP.

ii) To pay another sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation inclusive the costs for causing harassment and mental torture including litigation expenses to the complainant.

iii) Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as punitive measure which shall be deposited 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

15. Opposite party is liable to comply with the aforesaid order within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copies of the order.

16. The complaint could not be decided in the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.

17. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned.

PRONOUNCED

DATED: 25/09/2019

                                     B. S. DHALIWAL                                          INDERJEET KAUR

                                                 MEMBER                                                       MEMBER