Punjab

Sangrur

CC/218/2018

Sandeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Easyday Future Retail Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Smt. Sarbjit Kaur

13 Sep 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 218                                                                                       

                                                                  Instituted on:    03.05.2018                                                                                  

                                                                 Decided on:     13.09.2018

 

Sandeep Kumar son of Shri Sarup Chand resident of Ram Nagar, Sunam District Sangrur.         

                                                …. Complainant

                             Versus

1.       Easyday, Future Retail Limited Shop No.636/1, Opposite ICICI Bank Limited, Agarsain Chowk, Sunam, District Sangrur through its Manager.

 

2.       Easyday, Future Retail Limited 3rd Floor,  Plot No.82, Near NIIT Corp. Office, Gurugram ( Haryana) through its Managing Director.         

 

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINAN  :      Mrs. Sarabjit Kaur Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES     :      Shri Gagandeep Bhagria, Advocate

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

 

 

ORDER:  

 

 

                Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

 

1.             Sandeep Kumar, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased Ariel Matic 2Kg washing powder from the OP no.1  vide invoice dated 07.01.2018 and paid Rs.480/-. The complainant was surprised to see that   the price amount on the bill/ invoice and on the Ariel Matic 2Kg washing power is different. The OPs  had charged Rs.480/- for the said washing powder whereas  the MRP on the said packing of Ariel Matic 2Kg washing powder is mentioned as Rs.465/-.  As such the OPs had charged Rs.15/- in excess from the complainant which is totally illegal and  amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The complainant  requested the OPs to refund the excess charged amount of Rs.15/-   but OPs did not do so. Thus, alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.15/- charged along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OP be directed to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is submitted that complainant has purchased Ariel Matic 2Kg  vide  said bill/invoice but the OPs denied the sale of alleged product.  It is further submitted that  from the perusal of the photo produced by the complainant it reveals that  manufacturing date of the said product is 07/2016 and it has been alleged to be sold in 07.01.2018  whereas the OPs have not sold such old products.  The alleged product is not purchased by the complainant from the OPs. It is  specifically denied that the OPs have charged  excess price. The MRP of the sold product is Rs.480/- and the same is rightly charged by the OPs.

3.             The complainant has filed replication wherein it has been stated that he  never  said that the OPs sold any product which was expired. The allegation of  the complainant is only that  the OPs took excess money from him for the product in question.  The complainant has also stated that the product mentioned by the complainant is Top and Front load Ariel Matic but the photographs mentioned by the OPs is only Front load Ariel Matic 2Kg.  

 

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP has tendered documents Ex.OP-1  to Ex.OP-5 and closed evidence.

5.             We have carefully perused the entire  complaint, version of the OPs and evidence tendered by both the parties and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. We find that the complaint has following merits.

6.             The complainant's simple case is that he purchased  Ariel Matic 2Kg washing powder from the OP no.1  vide invoice dated 07.01.2018 and paid Rs.480/-. The complainant's further case is that he was surprised to see that the price amount mentioned on the bill/ invoice and on the Ariel Matic 2Kg washing power is different. The complainant's grievance is that the OPs  had charged Rs.480/- for the said washing powder whereas  the MRP on the said packing of Ariel Matic 2Kg washing powder is mentioned as Rs.465/- and  as such the OPs had charged Rs.15/- in excess from the complainant which is totally illegal   and amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. On the other hand the OPs have admitted that complainant had purchased Ariel Matic 2Kg  vide said bill/invoice but they denied the sale of alleged product.  It is further submitted that  from the perusal of the photographs produced by the complainant it reveals that  manufacturing date of the said product is 07/2016 and it has been alleged to be sold in 07.01.2018  whereas the OPs have not sold such old products.

7.             We have perused the entire documents produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for parties.  We find that the complainant has produced on record copy of invoice dated 07.01.2018 Ex.C-2 wherein it has been specifically mentioned the product name i.e.  Ariel MTC of 2Kg. From the perusal of the said invoice, we also find that the OPs had charged Rs.480/- from the complainant for the said product. The OPs have not denied the issuance of said invoice/bill Ex.C-2 rather they admitted issuance of the same. Further, the complainant has also produced on record box of the disputed product which is Ex.C-6 on record, from the perusal of it we also find that there is a mention of price of Rs.465/- of the said product.

8.             Learned counsel for the OPs have specifically argued that from the perusal of the photo of the said product it reveals that manufacturing date of the said product is 07/2016 and it has been alleged to be sold in 07.01.2018 and the OPs have not sold such old products and the product available with the OPs at that time was of manufacturing date 07/2017 and MRP of said product is Rs.480/-.  But, surprisingly the OPs have not produced any sale/ purchase record which is maintained by them for sale/ purchase of the product.  It is matter of common knowledge that every shopkeeper/ seller have been maintaining the record regarding sale / purchase of goods. The OPs have not disclosed the reason that why they could not produced the record regarding sale and purchase of the products. Even they could not tell that they have been maintaining the record regarding the sale/ purchase of the products at their showroom or not . So, in the absence of the sale/purchase record maintained by the OPs it cannot be said that the product in question was not sold by the OPs to the complainant.  Moreover, the OPs have not denied the issuance of the  invoice which has been produced by the complainant rather they admitted  that the same was issued by the OPs. Hence, from the facts discussed above, we find that the OPs have charged an amount of Rs.15/- in excess from the complainant. According to the Mandatory Printing of cost of production and Maximum Retail Price Act, 2006, the OPs cannot charge  the excess amount from the MRP of the product. We also find that it is not the case of the complainant that the OPs had sold him an old product or  product of an expiry date. So, in view of this the version of the OPs that the manufacturing date of the said product is  07/2016 and sale of the product is 07.01.2018 and OPs have not sold  such old products  is not tenable.  We feel that this act of the OPs  i.e charging of excess amount from the  MRP of the said product from the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

9.             For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10000/- on account of mental pain, agony harassment and unfair trade practice. We further direct the OPs to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained with this Forum on account of unfair trade practice.

10.           This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                September 13, 2018

 

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)                                 (Sarita Garg)                                                                                                                                                               

Member                                   Presiding   Member