SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the OP’s to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s.
The brief of the complaint :
The complainant and his family approached 1st OP’s shop at Chakkarakkal on 19/4/2023 and he purchased a bundle “clean plus floor cleaner” for an amount of Rs.89/- for 500ml and contain 2 bottles also. The 1st OP’s advertisement and brochure to the product clean plus floor cleaner MRP Rs.178/- offer price Buy-1 Get one free . In order to attract the offer the complainant purchased this clean plus floor cleaner product. But at the time of billing the product the complainant enquired the offer price of the product. Then 1st OP stated that there is no offer price and the value of the product is Rs.178/-. The advertisement shown to 1st OP and the complainant sates that as per the brochure published that Day mart special offer MRP Rs.178/- offer price Buy 1 Get 1-free. But the 1st OP is not ready to pay the offer price. Then the cashier and other staff insulted the complainant and his family in front of other customers. Thereafter the complainant paid Rs.178/- to 1st OP for the bundle of clean plus floor cleaner of 500ml of 2 bottle in the bundle. But the act of 1st OP the complainant and his family caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence the complaint.
After filing the complaint, notice issued to both OP’s . The 1st OP received the notice and not appeared before the commission and not filed version . As such this case came to be proceed against 1st OP as set exparte. 2nd OP is also called absent and set exparte.
Even though the OP’s have remained ex-parte it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by him against the OP’s. Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with documents marking them as Exts.A1 & A2 (series). The complainant was examined as PW1. So the opposite parties remain absent in this case. At the end the Commission heard the case on merit.
Let us have a clear glance at the relevant documents of the complainant. In Ext.A1 is the tax invoice dtd.19/4/2023. As per the invoice the amount is shown as Rs.178/-. But Ext.A2(a) clearly shows that clean plus floor cleaner 500ml for Rs.89/-. So the product is packed in a bundle 2 in number and included one packet for 500ml for 2 bottle and the price noted as Rs.89/-. But the OP sold the bundle for Rs.178/-. In Ext.A2(b) clearly shows that Daymart special offer clean plus floor cleaner MRP Rs.178/- and offer price Buy-1 Get-1 free is noted. So it is clear that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s. Under this circumstances we are of the considered view that the 1st OP is directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. So the complainant is entitled to get Rs.5000/- as the compensation for mental agony of the complainant along with Rs.1500/- as litigation cost.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the 1st opposite party to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant along with Rs.1500/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default, the amount of Rs.5,000/- carries interest@ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization , failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1- Tax invoice(cash bill)
A2(series)-Day mart special offer brochure(3 in Nos)
PW1-Shijoy.A- complainant.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva /Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
