DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.402 of 05/10/2018
Decided on: 26/09/2019
Ramanbir Singh s/o Sh. Rajinder Singh, R/o Gurutegh Bahadur Niwas, Chandni Chowk, Patiala.
….Complainant
Versus
1. Big Bazar ( Future Retail Ltd.) North Zone Office, Future Retail Office, 3rd Floor, Plot No.82, Sector 32, Near NIIT Corp. Office, Gurgram-122001, Haryana through its Managing Director.
2. Big Bazar (Future Retail Ltd.) Omaxe Mall, The Mall, Patiala through its Manager.
….Opposite parties
Complaint U/S 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM
Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
Sh. B. S. Dhaliwal, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh. Paramjit Singh Walia Adv. counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Amanpreet Singh Bawa Adv. counsel for Opposite parties
ORDER
B. S. Dhaliwal, MEMBER
1. The complainant Ramanbir Singh (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 & another (here-in-after referred as opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated that the case of the complainant is that Big Bazar, Omaxe Mall, Patiala is one of the Retail Out-Lets of Future Retail Ltd. in India dealing in the sale of Grocery and other house hold items of daily needs. The complainant is one of the regular customer of OPs and purchased grocery and other items along with one Jar of “Brown Sugar” of 800 gms. for Rs.100/- vide invoice dt.07.07.2018.
3. It is contended that when the complainant checked the Invoice after reaching at his house it came to his notice that the MRP of the “Brown Sugar” was Rs.95/- duly printed on the Jar itself along with other detailes as required under Legal Metrology Act and Rules. Since MRP of the item purchased by the complainant was Rs.95/- but Ops have charged Rs.100/- as such Ops have cheated the complainant and played fraud by charging more than the MRP which amounts to unfair trade practice besides deficiency in service on their part. The complainant is regular customer of OPs and by charging more than the MRP, the OPs have not only breached the trust of the complainant but have also caused grave mental agony and harassment besides monetary loss. The complainant brought in to the notice of Manager about the excess amount charged by them illegally of the printed MRP but he refused to pay any heed or give any explanation or even to refund the excess amount charged.
4. In the sequel of these facts, the complainant has prayed for direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment besides monertary loss.
5. Upon notice OPs No.1 & 2 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 “ Brown Sugar” 800gms for Rs.100/- is denied. Complainant has never approached the OPs for the refund of the over charged alleged amount. Had the complainant has ever brought into the notice of the OPs of over charging, then the OPs must have corrected the bill immediately. After denying all the other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In evidence the complainant tendered in to evidence Ex.CA his affidavit, Ex.C-1 original bill, Ex.C-2 original product i.e. jar of Brown Sugar 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 and the product in question has not been produced during the course of hearing and further questioned the correctness of invoice by contending that photocopy of invoice is not the copy of original invoice. It is also contended that the complainant has not exhibit Invoice and Brown Sugar Jar in his affidavit
10. L.d 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, passed in F.A. No.677 of 2018, Gurmeet Singh vs. Big Bazar and another. Ex.C-1 is the original invoice accompanied with the photocopy of the same vide which the complainant has purchased “Brown Sugar” 800 gms for which OP No.2 has charged Rs.100/- from the complainant. Ex.C-2 is the Card Board Box duly sealed in which the Jar of Brown Sugar was retained at the time of evidence of the complainant. On opening the same during the course of arguments in the presence of Ld. Counsels, it is found that printed MRP of the product in question is Rs.95/- which establishes that OP No.2 has charged Rs.5/- over and above the MRP from the complainant. Fuurther inspite of the request made by the complainant OPs failed to refund the same and as such indulged in unfair trade practice and forced the complainant to file this complaint.
11. On merits the OPs have denied of over charging of Rs.5/- and time and again pleaded that the complainant has failed to produce the original Jar and without its inspection, it is not possible for them to give effective reply and they reserve their right to file amended reply after inspection of original Jar. The complainant at the time of his evidence produced the original Jar of Brown Sugar in the Forum and the same was retained in safe Card Board Box after sealing it and thus became the part of record. The OPs never moved any application for the inspection of Jar in question, therefore, it is a presumption that OPs have impliedly admitted of production of Jar of sugar before this Forum. The next issue contended by OPs is that on the original invoice, the photo copy of which was also submitted simultaneously have vanished with the passage of time. We have minutely examined the original invoice Ex.C-1 vis a vis the photocopy of the same. It is not correct that every entry of the original invoice is not legible. We tallied some entries with the photo copy such as Brown Sugar 800 for Rs.100/-, total saving 21.00, GST, CGST, SGST with figures and tax invoice Number 3884004000028140 which are talling with each other, therefore, safe inference is drawn that the photo copy of Invoice on record is the copy of original invoice. As per Ex.C-2 the price of the product in dispute is clearly printed as Rs.95/-. The oral contention of OP during arguments that the Invoice and the product i.e. Jar are not Exhibit in the affidavit of the complainant has no legal footing as the same were tendered during evidence and were exhibit as per procedure and as such are part and parcel of the file. A consumer has to be charged a price as printed on the product. Charging from consumer in excess of the MRP of the product amounts to unfair trade practice. Even the OPs have not admitted the over charging before this Forum.
12. Not only that the OPs 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 No.1 charged Rs.2/- in respect of the Moongdal and this “Forum” penalized the OP NO.1. 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.5/- over and above the MRP on one product, one can understand enormity of unfair trade practice adopted by OPs. 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 realize that they are bound to pay for the mal practices adopted by them.
14. Thus allowing the complaint, we direct the OPs as under:-
i) To pay Rs.5/- as refund towards the over charged 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) OPs are 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. OPs No.1 & 2 will be jointly and severally 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: 26/09/2019
B. S. DHALIWAL INDERJEET KAUR
MEMBER MEMBER
