Punjab

Sangrur

CC/255/2015

Rajesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Easy Day - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Sat Paul Sharma

09 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    255

                                                Instituted on:      04.05.2015

                                                Decided on:       09.09.2015

 

 

Rajesh Kumar aged about 45 years son of Shri Sham Lal, resident of Patiala Gate, Opposite Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Near Banasar Bagh, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

Easy Day, Bharti Retail Limited, Shop No.573/B-2/573A, Mittal Hospital, Sunami Gate, Sangrur through its Manager/ authorised signatory.

                                                        …Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Satpal Sharma, Adv.

For opposite party      :               Shri Sumesh Garg, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Rajesh Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that on 31.03.2015 the complainant purchased some articles/things for his domestic use from the OP vide bill/invoice number 1058002047810 dated 31.03.2015 and paid Rs.3218/-. It is further averred that out of these items there was also one packet of Vim Multi Bar (200gx3U and get 10 vim liquid pouch worth Rs.10/- free, offer MRP Rs.92/-) bear UPS code number 8901030540097, but the OP charged Rs.94/- from the complainant for this item. It is further averred that the complainant purchased this packet of Vim Multi for his personal use and it is further stated that the complainant was surprised to see that while billing the above said articles, the Op charged Rs.94/- vide said invoice dated 31.3.2015, meaning thereby the OP charged Rs.2/- more than the price of the packet as the same was Rs.92/-, whereas the Op charged Rs.94/- from the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant immediately approached the OP for refund of the excess price charged by him, but nothing happened.    It is further averred that the excess charging from MRP is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Op, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant the excess amount of Rs.2/- charged from him and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In written reply filed by OP, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant has unnecessary dragged the OP into uncalled litigation.  On merits, it is admitted that the OP had sold the articles worth Rs.3218/- on 31.3.2015, but it has been denied that the same were purchased by the complainant.  It has been stated that every consumer is vigilant in the modern era and similarly the person who purchased the packet of Vim Multi Bar has also made the payment of Rs.94/- after verifying the print rate mentioned in the packet. The wrapper of the packet on the basis of which the complainant is relying upon has not sold by the OP. It has been denied that the OP has charged Rs.2/- in excess from the complainant. It is stated further that the complainant is getting the undue advantage of the consumer law by using the tactics of pressure by filing the complaint in order to grab the big amount. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of invoice dated 31.3.2015, Ex.C-3 copy of invoice, Ex.C-4 copy of product/article and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the leaned counsel for OP has tendered Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of summon of complaint number 41/15, Ex.OP-3 copy of order dated 7.4.2015, Ex.OP-4 copy of cheque, Ex anfOP-5 copy of complaint and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased a packet of Vim Multi Bar for Rs.94/- from the OP, as is evident from the copy of bill dated 15.03.2015, Ex.C-2 is a copy of wrapper of Vim  multi bar showing that the printed price on the same was Rs.92/- only whereas the OP has charged Rs.94/- for the product, meaning thereby the OP charged Rs.2/- in excess.    In the present case, though the learned counsel for the OP has denied that the amount of Rs.2/- was not charged in excess, but it is proved from the copy of wrapper Ex.C-2 that the OP has charged Rs.2/- in excess than the printed price as is evident from the product number 8901030540097 which has been mentioned on the retail invoice Ex.C-3 and copy of wrapper Ex.C-4.  Thus, it is beyond any doubt that the OP has charged Rs.2/- in excess from the complainant for the product as mentioned above. In the present case, the OP did not even opt to refund to the complainant, the excess amount of Rs.2/- to the complainant.  Under the circumstances, we find it to be a clear cut case of unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  The learned counsel for the complainant has also cited D.K.Chopra versus Snack Bar 2014(2) CPC 418 (NC), wherein the OP charged double price than the printed one i.e. printed price was Rs.75/- whereas the Op charged the price of Rs.150/-, thus the Hon’ble National Commission held it to be a case of unfair trade practice and directed the OP to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and further an amount of Rs.50 Lacs was ordered to be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund. We feel that this citation is fully applicable in the circumstances of the present case.  

 

 

6.             The learned counsel for the OP has also referred the copy of an earlier complaint Ex.OP/5, copy of summon Ex.OP/2, copy of order Ex.OP/3 and copy of a cheque Ex.OP/4, we feel that these documents have no relevancy with the case in hand as that was a different case filed by the complainant before this Forum.  It is worth mentioning here that in the said case, the OP had compromised the matter with the complainant and had paid an amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant in the compromise. As such, we feel that the documents Ex.OP/2 to Ex.OP/5 are at all not helpful to the case of the complainant.

 

 

 

7.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and further to deposit an amount of Rs.5000/- in Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained with this Forum.  The OP is also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 9, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member