Order dictated by:
Ms.Rachna Arora,Member
- Sakshi Mehra, complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant alongwith her niece and nephew went to opposite party on 7.6.2017 evening and purchased one bottle of water vide invoice No. 666 dated 7.6.2017. The opposite party supplied bottle of kinley water bottle in the luke warm condition to the complainant and charged Rs. 35/0 whereas the MRP printed on the said bottle is for Rs. 20/- including all charges. The complainant made protest to the opposite party for excess and over and above charging of Rs. 15/- on the said water bottle. But the opposite party instead of refunding the said amount misbehaved with the complainant . The aforesaid act of the opposite party in over charging on the water bottle to the tune of Rs. 35/- instead of Rs. 20/- amounts to deficiency in service, malpractice as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Vide instant complaint, complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
- Opposite party be directed to refund Rs. 15/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from 7.6.2017 till realization ;
- Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- alongwith adequate litigation expenses be also awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Opposite party did not opt to put in appearance , as such it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh. Deepinder Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
5. From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that opposite party charged the price of kinley Mineral water bottle to the tune of Rs. 35/- which is much exorbitant than the MRP mentioned on the neck of the bottles i.e. Rs. 20/- for Kinley Mineral water bottle . In this regard complainant has placed on record copy of bill Ex.C-2 . The evidence adduced by the complainant in support of her case has gone unrebutted on record as the opposite party, despite due service, did not opt to appear and contest the complaint. This means & imply that opposite party has no defence to offer and they impliedly admitted the claim of the complaint.
6. From the perusal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the Opposite Party has indulged in gross unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. Opposite Party could not charge the price of the Kinley Mineral water bottle in dispute in excess to the MRP that was to the tune of Rs.20/- only. As such, the complainant is entitled to refund of difference in MRP, from the Opposite Party. In support of this contention, we find support from D.K.Chopra-Petitioner Vs. Snack Bar-Respondent 2014(2) CPJ 493 (NC) wherein it has been held that there has been a large number of incidents of exploitation of ‘consumers’ leading to a constant urge of a panacea. To protect the ‘consumers’ from the excessive prices charged by the Traders, it is provided that the State declared the rates for the purchase and sale of all marketable commodities, in order to protect the ‘consumers’ from arbitrary exploitation by the Traders. It is clear that the respondent has been earned crores of rupees. It led the customers up the garden parth. The ‘can’ does not mention that the OP can charge ‘double’ of the MRP. It has been further held that MRP itself, includes the commission/ profit, for a ‘shop-keeper’. Under these circumstances, we accept the revision petition, set aside the orders of the fore below and allow the complaint. The Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant, within 90 days, from the receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum, till realization. However, it is not the end of the road. The Opposite Party has exploited the public, prior to, and after the incident. The public was taken for a ride, under the very nose of the Airport Authority. The OP has no right to keep and misappropriate the public money. It must got back to the public. We, therefore, order that the OP will deposit a sum of Rs.50 lacs, the estimated rough amount, with the Consumer Welfare Fund, by means of a demand draft drawn in favour of Pay and Accounts Officer-Ministry of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi, within 90 days, from the receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization. Therefore, the Register of this Commission shall report. Revision Petition allowed. Further reliance has been placed in Ajay Pal Singh Vs. Baskin Robbins, First Appeal No. 644 of 2013 decided on 20.7.2015 by Hon’ble State Consumer Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh wherein in similar set of facts, the Opposite Party was found to be deficient in providing the service to the complainant as also of adopting unfair trade practice. Apparently, the Opposite Party is regularly indulging in this practice of sale of items not listed in its menu card at much higher price than the MRP to fleece the innocent customers, who visit its premises. In view of the above findings, the appeal of the appellant/ complainant is partly allowed with a cost of Rs.3000/- and the respondent/ Opposite Party is directed to refund to the complainant Rs.40/- charged in excess than the MRP. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation, for indulging in unfair trade practice, out of which Rs.5,000/- be paid to the complainant and the remaining amount of R.20,000/- be deposited in the Legal Aid Fund of this Commission. This order be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order. Impugned order of the District Forum is set aside.
7. From the aforesaid discussion, it emerges that Opposite Party has indulged in unfair trade practice by charging Rs.35/- while the MRP of the mineral water bottle was Rs.20/- only and whereby overcharged Rs.15/- from the complainant which the Opposite Party is under legal obligation to refund the same to the complainant forthwith. So far as compensation regarding unfair trade practice as well as mental agony and harassment to the complainant is concerned, the complainant is entitled to receive as much compensation to offset the loss occasioned to him. It is settled principle of law that no exorbitant compensation can be awarded to enrich a party at the cost of the other party. Therefore, the claim of the complainant for grant of hefty amount as compensation, is not tenable. In our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only) and which is awarded accordingly while litigation expenses are assessed at Rs. 3000/-. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 7.8.2017
