Haryana

Panchkula

CC/130/2015

KAMLA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

EASY DAY - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

18 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.

 

CC No. 130 of 2015.

Date of Instt.  20.07.2015.

Date of Decision 18/11/2015.

 

Smt.Kamla Devi aged 63 years wife of Sh.B.S.Kataria, resident of House No.503 Sector 12, Panchkula, District Panchkula.

 

                                                                             ..Complainant.

  Versus

 

1.Easyday, Vatika Building, Tower- A, Ist Floor, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized signatory.

 

2^nd  Address:-

 

Easyday, Registered office at Bharti Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase 2, New Delhi-110070.

 

2.Easyday, Bharati Retail Ltd. SCO No.386, Sector 20, Urban Estate, Panchkula through its Prop./Authorized Signatory.

 

                                                                        ..Opposite parties.

              Complaint under Section 12 of CP Act

 

Before:        Mr.Dharampal, President.

                   Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

                   Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

Present:       Mr. Pankaj Kataria, authorized representative for the                                complainant.

                   Ops are exparte.

 

ORDER

(DHARAMPAL, PRESIDENT)

 

                    Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased some house hold articles from OP No.2 vide retail invoice No.1095004008393 for an amount of Rs.847/-.  The complainant took the articles to his house alongwith detailed invoice but he was taken by surprise on knowing that the Ops had charged an amount of Rs.65/- for purchase of Duracell AA2  despite the fact that the MRP of the product in question was written as Rs.60/-  The OP No.2 had charged Rs.5/- in excess for the purchase of the product in question which shows that the Ops are indulging in unfair trade practice. The complainant is a regular customer of the Ops but due to the act and conduct of the Ops the complainant has not only suffered financial loss but also faced mental agony and harassment which clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.  In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit and documents Annexure CA, Annexure C1 to Annexure C3.

2.                On notice, the Ops did not appear before this Forum despite issuance of notice through registered post. Hence, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.10.2015.

3.                Heard. The complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance.

4.                The complainant in support of his contentions has placed on record his affidavit (Annexure CA) besides tendering documents Monthly statement of SBI Silver & More Card (Annexure C1), Retail Invoice/receipt of Easy day (Annexure C2), printed material showing MRP of the product purchased by the complainant (Annexure C-3). The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops had charged extra amount of Rs.5/- as the MRP on the product in question was less than the total charged amount.  There is force in the contentions made by the complainant as the cost of the product i.e. Duracell AA2   has been shown as Rs.60/- (Annexure C3) whereas the Ops have charged Rs.65/- for the said product as is evident through Annexure C2.  The Ops did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops despite notice shows that it has nothing to say in its defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. Moreover, there is every possibility that the Ops had been frequently indulging in such unfair trade practice with the public in general. Further, who knows how many customers like complainant can spare time and money to come forward to highlight the unfair trade practice adopted by the OP. Hon’ble Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Rederessal Commission in case titled as Anant Rai G.Raval Vs. Adani Gas Limited & Anr. III (2013) CPJ 10B (CN) (Guj.) has held that Gas Connection –Extra amount charged-Refund of amount-Deficiency in service-unfair trade practice-Charges recovered absolutely illegal-Deficiency in service proved. From the material available on the case file, it is gathered that the complaint of the complainant in respect of charging more price than the MRP which is proved from bill Annexure C2 is based on sound footings, therefore, it deserves acceptance. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint directing the Ops as under:

1. To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

 

 Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order failing which it shall be liable to pay above awarded amount of Rs.10,000/-to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9 % P.A. from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 20.07.2015 till its actual realization.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance

 

Announced

18.11.2015           S.P.ATTRI       ANITA KAPOOR       DHARAM PAL

                             MEMBER        MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT