DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 657
Instituted on: 09.11.2016
Decided on: 07.03.2017
Gurpreet Singh son of Shri Hardev Singh, resident of Village Kular Khurd, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.
…Complainant.
Versus
Easyday, Bharti Retail Limited, Upper Ground Floor, CL Tower, Nankiana Chowk, Sangrur through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.
…Opposite party
For the complainant : Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate.
For OP : Shri Sumesh Kumar Garg, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1 Shri Gurpreet Singh, 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 09.10.2016, the complainant approached the OP and purchased one Kg. Sugar packet for his domestic use vide bill number 3524002047102 dated 09.10.2016 for Rs.42/-. But the grievance of the complainant is that the OP charged Rs.42/- for the said packet of sugar as date was mentioned as 10.10.2016 instead of 09.10.2016, which is totally illegal and amounts to unfair trade practice as the Op charged the more price i.e. printed price was Rs.40.58, whereas the Op charged Rs.42/- from the complainant. The complainant immediately brought the mater to the knowledge of the OP for refund of the amount of Rs.2/-, but all in vain. 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 an amount of Rs.2/- charged by it 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 complaint of the complainant is baseless, devoid of any merits, that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint and that the OP operates a large number of stores spread over India. On merits, it has been denied that the complainant ever approached the OP or they refused to reduce the price. It is stated that in case any pricing issue is brought to the store manager or any store staff of the Op, as a policy matter the same is immediately corrected and refund of the excess amount charged is given. It is stated that the said product does not tally with the bill, as the product is dated 10.10.2016 and the bill is dated 09.10.2016. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 photocopy of product and closed evidence. On the other hand, the leaned counsel for OP has tendered Ex.OP-1 affidavit 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 one kilogram packet of sugar Rs.42/- from the OP, as is evident from the copy of bill dated 09.10.2016 Ex.C-2. Ex.C-3 is a copy of wrapper of Sugar packing showing that the printed price on the same was Rs.40.58/- only whereas the OP has charged Rs.42/- for the product, meaning thereby the OP charged Rs.1.42 in excess than the printed price on the packet. In the present case, though the learned counsel for the OP has denied that the amount of Rs.1.42 was charged in excess, but it is proved from the copy of wrapper Ex.C-3 that the OP has charged Rs.1.42 in excess as is evident from the product number PLU 007516 which has been mentioned on the retail invoice Ex.C-2. Thus, it is beyond any doubt that the OP has charged Rs.1.42 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.1.42 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 contended vehemently that there is not an intention on the part of the OP in charging any excess amount, nor the complainant ever brought to the notice of the OP about the excess charging, as such, it is stated that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP. But, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the OP, more so when, it is proved on record that the OP charged Rs.1.42 in excess from the complainant. Further there is no explanation from the side of the OP why they charged in excess Rs.1.42 from the complainant.
7. Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.1.42 and further to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and further to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- in Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained with this Forum.
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.
March 7, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
