Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 296.
Instituted on : 19.06.2019
Decided on : 31.01.2024.
PrikshitDahiya s/o Sh. Virender Singh r/o H.No.583, Se4ctor 23 Sonipat-131001 Haryana.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Future Retail Limited Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari(East), Mumbai-400060.
- Future Group- 5th floor, 84, Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya Marg, Tardeo Mumbai-400034 Through its Managing director & CEO Kishore Biyani.
- Future Retail Office(North Zone) 3rd Floor, Plot No.82, Sector 32, Near NIIT Corp. Office, Gurugram, Haryana-122001.
- Easyday Outlet Ground Floor, Ram Gopal Colony, Near Sagar Villa, Delhi Bypass, Rohtak-124001, Haryana.
…….Respondents/Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.G.K.Lalit, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are on 15.03.2019, he approached the store of respondent no.1 by the name and branding of ‘Easyday’ and purchased number of products, both discounted and non-discounted from the opposite party No.4and paid the complete amount of invoice dated 15.03.2019. When the complainant again checked the invoice after reaching home, it came to his knowledge that one item listed on the invoice/bill bearing no.3509004000009918 dated January 21.2018 for the total amount of Rs.106/- was charged at a price higher than the MRP listed on the product. Detail of said product is mentioned hereunder:
Sr. No. | Name of the product | Article code | MRP (In Rs.) | Price as charged in the invoice(in Rs.) | Price charged over and above the MRP(IN Rs.) |
1. | TIC TAC CHRY CLA 20G | 1704 | 20 | 25 | 5 |
The respondent no.1 had misrepresented and have deceived him by charging a price in excess of the maximum retail price and caused wrongful loss to the complainant. Complainant upon learning the above said cheating by overcharging for the product, approached the store of the respondent no.1 i.e. opposite party No.4 on the next day i.e. on March 16, 2019 for redressal of his grievances but all vent in vain. Till date, neither any explanation, nor any representation has been furnished to the complainant. Complainant also sent a legal notice vide registered post dated 25.04.2019 to the respondents regarding his complaint but no reply has been filed till today by the respondents. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to provide all the details regarding prices and discounts etc., to refund the amount charged in excess from their customers and also to reimburse the litigation expenses of Rs.31000/- alongwith a compensation of Rs.500000/- for the humiliation and mental agony faced by the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their written statement has submitted that day to day transaction of the outlet are not surveillance by opposite party No.1,2 & 3 and they are not liable for the same. Also company is having large chain of retail stores and has manifold transactions in a single day. At single point of time in store,their exists same product of different batch of same manufacturer with same or different MRP’s. The entire system is operated by machine and respondent cannot be blamed for technical error of the machine. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for rejection of the complaint. Thereafter, opposite parties did not appear and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.04.2023 of this Commission.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant made a statement that complaint already filed by the complainant be read as affidavit, tendered documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6and closed his exparteevidence on dated 20.07.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. In the present case as per tax invoice Ex.C4, complainant had purchased some household items from the opposite party No.4 i.e. store of opposite party no.1. As per this invoice, the price of ‘TIC TAC CHRY CLA 20G’ is mentioned as Rs.25/- The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties have charged more than the MRP listed on the product. To prove the same complainant has placed on record photocopy of the product ‘tic tac’ box Ex.C2 and Ex.C3.The perusal of Ex.C3 shows that the MRP of the same is Rs.20/- and the net weight of the same is 16G. As per the bill Ex.C4 the complainant had paid Rs.25/- for 20G whereas he has placed on record the photo of box containing 16G. Hence it is not proved that opposite parties had charged excess price than mentioned on the product. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
5. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
31.01.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
