DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 466 of 18.12.2017
Decided on: 13.9.2018
Harmeet Singh, age 30 years s/o S.Suminder Singh, R/o Village Asaam Nagar, Post Karhali Tehsil & District Patiala (Aadhar card No.7775 2292 3535)
…………...Complainant
Versus
Future Retail Limited Khasra No.5/6/2/1 Adjoining Johri Market, OBC Tehsil Road, Samana, District Patiala through its Manager/Incharge/MD.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
Sh.Kanwaljit Singh, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Harmeet Singh, complainant in person.
Sh.M.P.S.Sahi, Advocate, counsel for Opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
- The complainant purchased 100 gm ‘Golden Harvest Black Pepper’ from OP vide invoice No.35762111170040133017 dated 21.11.2017.The price of the product was printed on the packet as Rs.145/- but the OP charged Rs.165/- from the complainant, meaning thereby that the OP charged Rs.20/- in excess of the printed price from the complainant. The complainant requested the Op to refund the amount of Rs.20/- but the OP failed to refund the amount of Rs.20/-.Such an act on the part of the OP amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act),1986.
- On notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. The only plea taken by it is that the prices of the goods are feeded in the computer system, which are scanned at the time of billing vide their bar code, however, if any mistake occurs due to some technical problem, the OP corrects the same when it comes to its knowledge. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA , copy of tax invoice/receipt, Ex.C1, copy of packet showing MRP, Ex.C2 and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for OP tendered into evidence the written version dated 10.5.2018 filed by the OP with the prayer to read the same as evidence and closed the evidence of the OP.
- We have heard the complainant, the ld. counsel for the OP and also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased a few items from the OP , out of which one was ‘Golden Harvest Black Pepper’ for which the OP charged Rs.165/-.Ex.C2 is the photocopy of the packet vide which the price of the item is mentioned as Rs.145/-, which shows that the OP charged Rs.20/- in excess from the complainant.The complainant requested the OP to refund the amount of Rs.20/- but the OP failed to refund the same. Charging a customer over and above the MRP, amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to the OP to refund the amount of Rs.20/- charged in excess from the complainant and further to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for harassment and further to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:13.9.2018
KANWALJEET SINGH NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER MEMBER
