BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.655 of 14

Date of Institution: 12-12-2014

Date of Decision: 15-05-2015 

Jaspal Singh son of Joginder Singh, resident of H.No.L/1045, Gali No.8, New Gurnam Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. The Chief Officer/ M.D/ Zonal Manager, M/s.Easyday, Bharti Retail Limited, A.M.L.D. Surjit Palace, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar-143001.
2. The Chief Officer/ M.D/ Zonal Manager, M/s.Lovincare Cosmetics Private Limited, V.P.O. Bathu, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pardesh-174301.
3. The Chief Officer/ M.D/ Zonal Manager, M/s.S.C.Johnson Products Private Limited, 5^th Floor, Plot No. 68, Sector-44, Gurgaon, Haryana-122003 India.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11/12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate.

             For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Rao R.C.Yadav, Advocate

              For the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3: Sumant Tuteja, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Jaspal Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased  Glade Touch’n Fresh (Room Freshener) from Opposite Party No.1, manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 and marketed by Opposite Party No.3 on 6.9.2014 for which Opposite Party No.1 charged Rs.99/-. Complainant alleges that on enquiry, the complainant came to know that MRP (inclusive of all taxes) of the said product is Rs.90/-, but Opposite Parties dishonestly by misrepresenting charged Rs.99/- instead of Rs.90/- from the complainant for the above said product. By doing so, the Opposite Parties have done Unfair Trade Practice and unscrupulous exploitation of complainant and done a crime by bringing inflation in the market without any reason and playing fraud on society as a whole as well as with complainant. The complainant has suffered mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience. A legal notice dated 9.9.2014 and again reminder legal notice dated 29.10.2014 as required under the law was duly served upon the Opposite Parties under registered A.D, but inspite of service of the said notices, the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the  Opposite Parties to refund the excess amount and pay compensation  amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- for mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by the complainant.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the allegations made in the complainant by the complainant are totally baseless, illegal, unjustified and arbitrary. It is submitted that due to a technical issue in the system, there was a printing error in the invoice, which inadvertently showed MRP of Rs.90/- as Rs.99/-. However, the cashier realized the error there and then, and without any delay or second thought requested the customer to hand over the invoice so that he could rectify the same and refund the excess amount of Rs.9/-. Inspite of the repeated apologies and request, the customer instead of respecting the genuineness of the cashier, started threatening the cashier with mischievous intentions in order to extort unreasonable amounts and eventually left the store with faulty invoice in his possession. Such motivated actions are reprehensible, illegal and not permissible under law or legal process. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the alleged notice dated 29.10.2014 are totally wrong, baseless, malicious and without any substance and the same was duly replied by the answering Opposite Party vide reply dated 13.11.2014.      While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant has not alleged any deficiency of service qua the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 is a contract manufacturer of the Opposite Party No.3 and has no relation whatsoever in connection with the sale of any of its products, including the product viz. Glade which forms the subject matter of the complaint. The obligation of Opposite Party No.2 is to manufacture the product in accordance with the technical specifications given by the Opposite Party No.3 and deliver the same to Opposite Party No.3. Thus, the role of the Opposite Party No.2 comes to an end with the delivery of the product to the Opposite Party No.3. The Opposite Party No.2 has no role to pay with the marketing and sale of Glade.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Opposite Party No.3 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 has sold the Glade, an air freshener manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 and marketed by Opposite Party No.3, but Opposite Party No.3 does the invoicing of its products to its C & F agents, distributors at MRP mentioned on the pack or label. Opposite Party No.3 does not sell the products directly to the end consumers. The liability, if any, is that of the Opposite Party No.1 and not that of the Opposite Party No.3. The Opposite Party No.3 can not be held jointly and severally liable for the alleged acts of Opposite Party No.1. There is no cause of action alleged or pleaded in the complaint by the complainant against Opposite Party No.3. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
5. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
6. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Amritpal Singh, Assistant Store Manager Ex.OP1/1 and copy of reply to legal notice Ex.OP1/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Sanjay Srivastava, Director Ex.OP3/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP3/2  and  Ex.OP3/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. 
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by all the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased  product namely Glade Touch’n Fresh (Room Freshener) from Opposite Party No.1, manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 and marketed by Opposite Party No.3, on 6.9.2014 vide bill issued by Opposite Party No.1 Ex.C1 dated 6.9.2014. Opposite Party No.1 charged Rs.99/- for this product from the complainant. The Complainant submitted that on enquiry, the complainant came to know that MRP (inclusive of all taxes) of the aforesaid product is Rs.90/- only, but Opposite Party No.1 dishonestly charged Rs.99/- instead of Rs.90/- from the complainant for the aforesaid product. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 in this regard, but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.   The complainant then sent legal notice dated 9.9.2014 Ex.C3 through registered post, postal receipts of which are Ex.C4 to Ex.C6 as well as reminder legal notice dated 29.10.2014 Ex.C7 through registered post, postal receipts of which are Ex.C8 to  Ex.C10. But inspite of that, the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to request of the complainant, rather in reply to the legal notice  dated 13.11.2014 Ex.OP1/2, Opposite Party No.1 threatened the complainant to withdraw these notices dated 9.9.2014 and 29.10.2014 failing which the complainant shall be responsible for all  risks and consequences.   Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties qua the complainant, rather it amounts to Unfair Trade Practice.
9. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that complainant purchased this product from Opposite Party No.1 vide bill Ex.C1 on 6.9.2014. But due to a technical issue in the system, there was a printing error in the invoice, which inadvertently showed MRP of Rs.90/- as Rs.99/-. Opposite Party No.1 submitted that when the cashier realized the error there and then, and without any delay or second thought requested the customer to hand over the invoice so that he could rectify the same and refund the excess amount of Rs.9/-. But inspite of the repeated requests made by the cashier, the customer started threatening the cashier with intentions to extort unreasonable amounts and left the store with faulty invoice in his possession. The complainant has propounded a fictitious, bogus, forged and fabricated  claim in the present case in order to blackmail the Opposite Party No.1. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.
10. Whereas the case of Opposite Party No.2 manufacturer of the product as well as Opposite Party No.3 who marketed the product, is that, the maximum retail price inclusive of all the taxes of the product in question is Rs.90/-. If Opposite Party No.1 has charged Rs.99/- against the MRP (Maximum Retail Price) of Rs.90/-, it is Opposite Party No.1 who is responsible. Opposite Party No.2 manufacturer as well as Opposite Party No.3 who marketed the product, have no relation whatsoever in connection with the sale of the products including the product in question and for any fault on the part of Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 can not be  held jointly and severally liable for the alleged acts of Opposite Party No.1. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3.
11. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased  product namely Glade Touch’n Fresh (Room Freshener) from Opposite Party No.1 vide bill  dated 6.9.2014 Ex.C1 and  Opposite Party No.1 has charged Rs.99/- for this product from the complainant fully knowing that MRP of the product is Rs.90/- which is categorically mentioned on the product itself and this fact has been admitted by Opposite Party No.1 in their written version that MRP of the product in question is Rs.90/-. However, Opposite Party No.1 raised excuse that due to technical fault in the system, inadvertently the price of the product was written as Rs.99/- instead of MRP Rs.90/- of the product. Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the cashier of Opposite Party No.1 requested the complainant to return the bill Ex.C1 so that the same could be corrected and excess amount charged by the casher for the aforesaid product from the complainant i.e. Rs.9/- could be refunded to the complainant, but the complainant instead of accepting the request of the cashier threatened Opposite Party No.1 and its cashier to face the consequences. But the Opposite Party No.1 neither produced and examined said cashier nor filed affidavit of the said cashier nor even mentioned the name of the said cashier. Not only this, Opposite Party No.1 did not examine any co-employee of the cashier who could depose that what happened at that time with the cashier and the customer i.e. complainant. Opposite Party No.1 has filed an affidavit of Assistant Store Manager Ex.OP1/1 and not of the cashier. Apart from this, the conduct of Opposite Party No.1 is not fair. The complainant served two legal notices through registered post, one legal notice dated 9.9.2014 Ex.C3 and another legal notice dated 29.10.2014 Ex.C7 which were duly received by Opposite Party No.1 and they sent reply Ex.OP1/2 dated 13.11.2014  to the counsel of the complainant in which instead of making the request/ submission and requesting to compromise the matter, the Opposite Party No.1 threatened the complainant to withdraw the aforesaid legal notices and refrain from making such allegations against Opposite Party No.1 failing which the complainant shall bear all risk and consequences of such acts. All this shows that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 which causes mental as well as financial  harassment to the complainant.
12. Resultantly, we hold that the complainant is entitled to compensation from Opposite Party No.1, whereas there is no fault on the part of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 because they have admitted that MRP inclusive of all the taxes of the product in question is Rs.90/- and the Opposite Party No.1 has charged Rs.99/- from the complainant against MRP  Rs.90/-.
13. Consequently, we allow the complainant against Opposite Party No.1 with costs and Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund the  excess amount charged by Opposite Party No.1 from the complainant for the aforesaid product i.e. Rs.9/-. Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.   Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 15-05-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                 (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                         Member