Haryana

Jind

174/2014

Deeraj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Easyday, Bharti retails - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Vinod Bansal

30 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 174 of 2014
                            Date of institution:-15.12.2014
                            Date of decision:- 30.5.2016
Dheeraj Kumar Gill son of Sh. Prem Chand Gill resident of house No.2845 New Housing Board Colony, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind.

                                       ...Complainant.
Versus
Easyday, Bharti retails Ltd. DSC No.49/50 District Shopping Centre, Jind through its authorized person. 
                                                              …Opposite party.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.    
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
            
Present:-    Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh.  Rajiv Kumar, Adv.for opposite party. 
     
Order:-
        In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased grossry items for a sum of Rs.332/- and Rs.969.50P vide invoice No.1179002000659 dated 5.12.2014 and invoice No.1179004000232 dated 5.12.2014 respectively from opposite party. It is further alleged that he purchased one of the item Garnier hair color cream for a sum of Rs.157/- vide invoice 
            Dheeraj Kumar Vs. Easyday Bharti retails Ltd.
                        …2…
No.1179004000232 dated 5.12.2014 from opposite party. The complainant had made the payment of above said items purchased with the opposite party. After returning home the complainant got stunned to see that the MRP of Garnier hair color cream is Rs.145/- whereas the opposite party had charged Rs.157/- on account of price of this item. The complainant approached the opposite party just after about 30 minutes and requested to return the over charged amount but the concerned employee even refused to listen him. Thereafter, the complainant met the Manager of opposite party and also requested him to return his over charged amount but inspite of feeling apology the Manager misbehaved with him. The Manager refused to return the over charged amount while saying that they cannot return this amount because they have charged Rs.157/- as per computer feeding being handled with software which is not under their control and  same is under the control of their head office. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite party be directed to refund the amount of Rs.12/- extra charged from the opposite party, a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 
2.    Pursuant to notice, the opposite party  appeared and filed the written reply agitating that the complainant has got no cause of action and locus standi  to file the present complaint and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. On merits, it is contended that in case any pricing issue is brought to notice of the 
        Dheeraj Kumar Vs. Easyday Bharti retails Ltd.
                    …3…
store manager of the company, as a policy matter the same is immediately corrected and refund of the excess amount charged is given  and the same is also intimated further so that in case there is any problem with the system the same may be rectified. The complainant has not filed any document  which shows that the goods were purchased by the complainant for consideration from the opposite party or that the complainant is consumer in terms of the Act.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost  is prayed for.  
3.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of retail invoice Ex. C-2 and pamphlet Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite party  has produced  the affidavit of Sh.  Mitul Ghatak Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence.
4.    We have heard the argument of Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. It is well proved on the file that complainant had purchased some goods mentioned in the bill Ex. C-2 wherein the product namely ‘Garnier colour natural’ has been sold to the complainant by the opposite party @ Rs.157/- whereas maximum retail price of the said  product is Rs.145/-, which is clear from Ex. C-3(photo copy of box of product namely Garnier colour natural). From the perusal of the Ex. C-3 the product code is mentioned 8901526210176 match with the code mentioned in the bill. It is well established that the product has been sold by the opposite party to complainant @ Rs.157/- whereas the opposite party can not charge more than the maximum retail price mentioned on the product 
        Dheeraj Kumar Vs. Easyday Bharti retails Ltd.
                    …4…
i.e. of Rs.145/-.  Hence, the plea taken by the opposite party that they have never sold the product to the complainant is not tenable.  The opposite party has also failed to produce the duplicate bill of that day. Generally it is seen that such type of shopping mall does not mention the name of purchaser in the computerize bill. When the bill is in the custody of the purchaser, it is assumed that he has purchased the goods from that shop/mall.  The opposite party such plea only to save his skin because they are charging the excess price from the consumers and earned the profit to adopt the such type of unfair trade practice. The other objection of the opposite party that the complainant never approached to the Manager of the store for refund of excess amount seems to be unjustified. In this regard complainant has mentioned the above said facts that he has approached to the Manager of the opposite party for refund of the excess amount in this regard complainant has filed his affidavit to prove above said facts but opposite party had not controvert the plea of the complainant by way of filing the affidavit of the Manager alleging that  the complainant never approach them for refund of excess amount. Hence, the plea taken by the opposite party is not believable. 
5.    In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the arguments advanced by the opposite party is not tenable whereas the version of the complainant is duly proved that the opposite party has charged Rs.157/- instead of Rs.145/- M.R.P. printed on the packing box of the product in question from the complainant 

        Dheeraj Kumar Vs. Easyday Bharti retails Ltd.
                    …5…
which amounts to unfair means of  trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
This is clear cut violation of Section 2 (c ) iv  of C. P Act which reads as under:- 
(iv) a trader or the service provider, as the case may be, has charged for the goods or for the services mentioned in th complaint, a price in excess of the price:-
( a) fixed by or under any law for the time being in force;
(b) displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods;
(c ) displayed on the price list exhibited by him by or under any law  
     for the time being in force;
(d) agreed between the parties;

6.   Resultantly, we allow the complaint of the complainant with cost and direct the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.12/-(Rs. twelve only) to the complainant charged in excess of the M.R.P. and the opposite party is liable to be penalized by imposing the fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rs. five thousand only) which will be paid to the complainant by the opposite party. Such type of  practice is not permissible under the Law and opposite party is directed to discontinue such type of unfair trade practice forthwith not to repeat in future. The order be compliacned within 30 days from the date of orders failing which the complainant is entitled for the interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 15.12.2014 till its realization. Cost of the complaint is assessed Rs.1100/-(Rs. eleven 
        Dheeraj Kumar Vs. Easyday Bharti retails Ltd.
                    …6…
hundreds only).Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 30.5.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

               Dheeraj Kumar Vs. Easyday Bharti retails Ltd.
                        
Present:-    Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh.  Rajiv Kumar, Adv.for opposite party. 

                Arguments heard.  To come up on  30.5.2016 for orders.

                                       President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           24.5.2016

Present:-    Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh.  Rajiv Kumar, Adv.for opposite party. 

        Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 
                                                                                             President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           30.5.2016