cccccPBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of November 2012
Filed on : 01/10/2012
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 601/2012
Between
Seby Varghese, : Complainant
B-11, Royal Park Apartments, Party-in-person
NH Bye Pass road,
Chalikkavattom,
Vytilla, Cochin-682 019.
And
Food Bazar (Future Value Retail : Opposite party
Ltd.,), Gold Souk Grande (By Adv. K.B. Gangesh,
Ponnurunni, Vytilla Post, Remede, T-19, 3rd floor,
Cochin-682 019. Empire Building, Opp.
High Court (East Gate),
Old Railway Station Road,
Kochi-18)
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
On 23-09-2012 the complainant purchased 17 items from the opposite party at a price of Rs. 612/-. On verification it was found that the opposite party levied an excess price of Rs. 3/- for an item which costs Rs. 30/-. The complainant approached the opposite party to get his grievances redressed, but to no avail. So the complainant knocked at the doors of the forum seeking direction against the opposite party to refund the excess price of Rs. 3/- together with compensation and costs of the proceedings.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:
The entire billing system is computerized. But prices of various commodities are entered into the computer at the time of its stock verification. Occasionally it so happens that when a fresh stock of product arrives with price verification even before the old stock is completely sold out, the difference in price go unnoticed and is not entered into the system. Any complaint as against is immediately attended to and rectified by the customer care staff. In the instant case the fresh stock of rice flour arrived with a price of Rs. 30/- instead of earlier price of Rs. 33/-. The over billing is a bonafide mistake. There is no willful negligence or laches on the part of the opposite parties.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Ext. A1 was marked on the side of the complainant Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the learned counsel for the opposite party.
4. The only point that comes up for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the excess price of the rice flour together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. 5. Indisputably a consumer is only liable to pay the maximum retail price fixed for a product. In the instant case admittedly the opposite party has levied an excess price of Rs. 3/- than the maximum retail price. Naturally the complainant is entitled to get refund of the same.
5. The levying of excess price than the maximum retail price for whatever reasons amounts not only to deficiency in service but also to unfair trade practice and is also illegal. Compensation and costs of the proceedings are called for. Which is solely for the fact that the opposite party has been though inadvertently making but still admitting their fault which calls for a veritable costs which need not be repeated. We fix Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation and costs of the proceedings
6. Accordingly we allow the complaint in part and direct as follows:
i. The opposite party shall refund the excess price of Rs. 3/- to
the complainant.
ii. The opposite party shall also pay Rs. 1,000/- towards
compensation and costs of the proceedings.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of November 2012
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of bill
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
