Punjab

Sangrur

CC/637/2017

Kapil - Complainant(s)

Versus

Future Group - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Tarun Goyal

19 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 637                                                                                         

                                                                   Instituted on:  01.12.2017                                                                                    

                                                                Decided on:    19.03.2018

 

Kapil son of Shish Pal Goyal c/o K.K.Goyal & Company, near Bus Stand Railway Road, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.   

                                                …. Complainant.   

Versus

 

1.       Future Group, Future Retail Pvt. Limited Branch Office, 4th Floor, Plot No.82, Sector-32, Gurgaon, Gurugram-122001 (Haryana) through its M.D.

2.       Easy Day, Future Retail Limited, 636/1, Opposite ICICI Bank, Aggarsain Chowk, Sunam District Sangrur through its Store Manager.

                                                  ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:       Shri Tarun Goyal,   Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES   :        Shri Gagandeep Bhagria, Advocate

 

Quorum

                                                

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg,   Member

 

                 

ORDER:  

 

 

Sarita Garg, Member

 

1.             Kapil, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 25.11.2017  he purchased Amul Butter pack weighing 500grams item for an amount of Rs.225/- from the OP no.1.  The complainant came to know that  OP  no.2 had charged Rs.225/-  as the MRP of Amul Butter pack 500 gms is Rs.225/-  but the Op no.2 hanged a tag  that our sale price of  Amul Butter pack 500Gram is Rs.215/- .  Then the complainant approached the OPs and requested to refund the excess price of Rs.10/- charged by them but the OPs refused to refund the extra charge amount. Thus, alleging unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to pay Rs.10/- as excess charged,

 ii)    OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account mental agony and harassment and to pay Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is denied that there was any hash tag on the store on OPs for Rs.215/-  instead of Rs.225/- for the product Amul butter 500 gm. It is further denied that on 25.11.2017  there was any scheme for Amul product on the store of OPs and the OPs rightly charged Rs.225/- for the product as the same is MRP of the product. The alleged photograph produced by the complainant regarding scheme tag has  no concern with the OPs. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have produced an affidavit Ex.OP-1 and closed evidence.

4.             From the perusal of documents produced on the file and after hearing the arguments of both the parties, we find it is an admitted case  that the complainant purchased Amul Butter pack weighing 500gms for Rs.225/- from the OPs on 25.11.2017 which is evident from Ex.C-2 i.e. invoice. He has stated in his complaint that Ops have charged Rs.225/- as the MRP of the product  Rs.225/- as per copy of the product box Ex.C-3. He has further stated that there was tag on the store that our sale price of Amul Butter pack 500 gms i.e. Rs.215/-  instead of Rs.225/-. So, he has stated that  OPs have charged excess price of  Rs.10/-  for the product but the OPs stated in their reply that there was no hash tag on the store of the OPs for Rs.215/- on the purchase date of the product i.e. on 25.11.2017. The price tag hanged on 26.09.2017 relates to the store of the OPs but the billing of the product is 25.11.2017 means  two months prior.

5.             In view of the above discussion, we find that the complainant has exhibited Ex.C-4 to prove his case i.e. copy of tag. On that exhibit particular date is mentioned as 26.09.2017. It is presumed from the date  that the product of scheme  on tag was either upto 26.09.2017 or for the date only 26.09.2017 but the complainant has purchased the product on 25.11.2017. The complainant has failed to prove his case and  we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  So, we find no merit in the complaint and same is dismissed. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                       

                Announced

                March 19, 2018

 

 

 

                               (SaritaGarg)           ( Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

   Member                    President