| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/15/243 of 19.10.2015 Decided on: 22.3.2016 Jaswinder SinghS/o Sh.Ishar Singh, aged 34yrs. Now r/o Bhankhar Road, Sanaur. M.No.98724-74947, 94783-23602. …………...Complainant Versus Easy Day Store-Bharti Retail Ltd., near Kay Jay School, Patiala …………….Op Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh. A.P.S.Rajput, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Amit Bedi, Advocate For Op: Sh.Dhiraj Puri,Advocate ORDER NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER - The complainant purchased some goods from the OP vide retail invoice dated 12.10.2014. Alongwith these goods , the complainant also purchased one ‘Dove Shampoo’ bearing article No.890103039471(as mentioned in the retail invoice).It is averred that the complainant utilized the product but before he could throw the empty bottle of the product, he by chance checked the MRP of the product in question, which was mentioned as Rs.132/- and he compared it with its retail invoice, wherein it was mentioned as Rs.135/-.It was only after this that the complainant realized that the Op had cheated him and committed unfair trade practice by charging money over and above the MRP from the complainant.Accordingly the complainant approached the OP in the month of November,2014 and pointed out the error but the Op failed to resolve the matter and told the complainant to visit after a few days, which the complainant did and lastly the complainant visited the Op in the month of January,2015, when the Op refused to entertain the complaint of the complainant by saying that the product in question was not sold by it.
- It is further averred that the Op failed to redress the grievance of the complainant and thus the act of the OP is said to be a fraud on the general public, an unfair trade practice as also a deficiency in service.Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the OP to refund the over charged price i.e. Rs.3/- ( Rs.135-132=3) alongwith a sum of Rs.61000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment and mental agony experienced by him as also the litigation expenses.
- On notice, Op appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. The Op admitted the complainant having purchased the item from the OP vide bill dated 12.10.2014.It is also an admitted fact that the complainant purchased one ‘Dove shampoo’ bearing article No.890103039471. It is further admitted that the MRP of the product in question was mentioned as Rs.132/- whereas in the retail invoice of the complainant it was mentioned as Rs.135/-. It is further submitted that all the goods/items kept in the store were displayed on their counters and the price of every product is systematically entered into the computers of the Ops and the computer picks universal product code (i.e. UPC) which remains the same on all the MRPs of the product, whether it is new or old, as such, on that day the computer depicted Rs.135/- as the MRP Dove Shampoo.
- The Op has denied that the officials of the OP refused to rectify the error or to refund the excess amount. As such no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the OP.After denying all other allegations mentioned in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C3 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, on behalf of the OP, its counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Jugraj Singh, the team leader of Easy Day and closed its evidence.
- The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
- The Op has admitted the fact that the complainant purchased the ‘Dove Shampoo’ bearing article No.890103039471 from the Op on 12.10.2014. It is further admitted that MRP of the product in question was Rs.132/- whereas in the retail invoice of the complainant it was mentioned as Rs.135/-. Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice wherein the price of the product in question is mentioned as Rs.135/-.Ex.C2 is the click of the bottle of shampoo, which shows the price of the product as Rs.132/-.The plea taken up by the Op is that the product was on display at the counter. Even if we believe the plea of the Op that the ‘Dove shampoo’ bottle bearing MRP of Rs.132/- was on display, we fail to understand as to how the Op could charge Rs.135/- in lieu of Rs.132/- mentioned on the product. A consumer has to be charged the price as printed on the product. Charging a consumer more than the MRP printed on the product, amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the seller i.e. the OP.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to the Op to refund Rs.3/- charged in excess from the complainant and further to pay a sum of Rs.13,000/- by way of punitive damages, out of which Rs.3000/-be paid to the complainant and the same is inclusive of the costs of the complaint and the remaining Rs.10,000/- will be deposited in Consumer Welfare Fund of the Forum. The order be complied by the Op within 45 days on the receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Pronounced Dated:22.3.2016 Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta A.P.S.Rajput Member Member President | |
