DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)

(1)                               Consumer Complaint No.2065 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:  15.10.2019                                              Date of decision   :  07.09.2020

Jaspreet Kaur aged 30 years resident of SCF 32, Phase 5, SAS Nagar Mohali (Punjab).

…….Complainant

(2)                               Consumer Complaint No.2066 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:  15.10.2019                                              Date of decision   :  07.09.2020

Jaspreet Kaur aged 30 years resident of SCF 32, Phase 5, SAS Nagar Mohali (Punjab).

…….Complainant

(3)                               Consumer Complaint No.2067 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:  15.10.2019                                              Date of decision   :  07.09.2020

Jaspreet Kaur aged 30 years resident of SCF 32, Phase 5, SAS Nagar Mohali (Punjab).

…….Complainant

Versus

Brand Factory (FLFL), through its Store Manager,

Address: Cosmo Plaza, NH-22, Zirakpur, District Mohali-140603

                                                      ……..Opposite Party  

Complaints under Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

                Shri Inderjit, Member

Present:    None for the complainant.

                OP Ex-parte.

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

Order

               The present order of ours will dispose of 3 Consumer Complaints under Consumer Protection Act filed by the same complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the same Opposite Party (hereinafter referred as ‘OP’ for short).  Since facts of all the three complaints are same, we feel that all the three complaints can be decided with one order. It is alleged in Complaint No.2065 that the CC purchased a set of Hankies of Firenzi Brand vide Invoice No.0387005000000870 from the clothing store of the OP vide bill Ex.C-1.  It is further mentioned in the complaint that MRP of the product was Rs.299/- and discount @ 60% was also provided by the OP. The price of the product after discount should have been Rs.119.60  but an amount of Rs.126/- was charged by the OP from the CC, after adding GST @ 5% i.e. Rs.5.98 on the discounted price of Rs.179.40. The allegation of the CC is that while giving discount on the MRP, the OP was not legally allowed to charge GST on the discounted amount. On her request, no clarification was provided by the staff of the OP.

                Thus alleging deficiency in service and malpractice on the part of the OP, the CC has sought refund of Rs.5.98 charged by the OP for the GST and compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. Further CC has demanded Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

                Similar complaints bearing No.2066 and 2067 are filed by the CC. In complaint No.2066 the  CC has again purchased a set of Hankies of Firenzi Brand vide Invoice No.0387007000001382 and MRP of the same was Rs.299/- and the other allegations are the same. In the third complaint No.2067 the CC has purchased a set of Hankies of Firenzi Brand vide Invoice No.0387005000000873 and MRP of the same was Rs.299/- and the other allegations are the same.

2.             The OP has chosen to remain ex-parte. We feel  that Consumer Protection Act is a special Act enacted to provide speedy justice to the parties. We feel that no evidence is required from the complainant as the OP is already ex-party. We also feel that arguments are also not required from complainant side as the complainant is relying solely on bill Ex.C-1 in all the three complaints.

3.             We have minutely perused bill Ex.C-1 in all the three complaints. It is pertinent to mention here that in all the bills attached with all the three complaints, name of the CC is no where mentioned. In other similar complaints which are pending before this Commission, it is noticed that name of the purchaser is always mentioned in the bill which is generated with the help of computer. It is important to mention here that huge number of such type of complaints are pending before this Commission against the same OP. It is also important to mention here that even address of the CC is not proper in all the three complaints i.e. there is no clear residential proof of the CC attached with the complaints.

4.             Since name of the complainant is absolutely missing from the bills, we feel that complainant has even failed to establish prima facie to prove that she is consumer of the OP. It is possible that she might have procured the bill and somebody else might have done purchasing of the goods in question. This Commission is not satisfied with the allegations of the CC. As such we feel that all these three complaints appear to be false and frivolous and the same are hereby dismissed. However, no cost is imposed by taking into consideration that the complainant is a lady. However, she is warned in future to refrain herself from filing such complaints. Free certified copies of the orders be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be consigned to record in accordance with rules.

Announced

September 07, 2020

                                                                (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member

(Inderjit)

Member