DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/156/2022

Date of Institution : 01.06.2022

Date of Decision : 22.03.2024

Gurjant Singh, aged about 35 years, son of Teja Singh residentof Maur (Nabha), Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala.    

                     …Complainant

        Versus

Jonny Walia resident of Near 3 Raja Chowk, Ucchi Dukan, Maur Patiala, District Barnala (Mobile No. 78890-52245).

                 …Opposite Party.

Complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Present: Sh. S.S. Mann Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. R.S. Sandhu Adv counsel for opposite party.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill : President

2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

1.    The complainant namely Gurjant Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, (amended upto date) against Jonny Walia resident of Near 3 Raja Chowk, Ucchi Dukan, Maur Patiala, District Barnala (in short the opposite party). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the opposite party is running a Karyana Shop at Maur (Patiala), District Barnala and the complainant often visited in the shop of the opposite party for purchase of goods. It is alleged that on 16.3.2022 the complainant visited the shop of opposite party and purchased one refined oil bottle from the opposite party which bears MRP of Rs. 158/- but the opposite party asked the complainant to pay Rs. 170/- against the said refined oil bottle. The complainant asked the opposite party that the bottle bears Rs. 158/- and why the opposite party is demanding Rs. 170/- from the complainant but the opposite party asked that he will not sell said bottle for Rs. 158/- and the complainant has to pay Rs. 170/-, as the complainant was in need of the same as such the complainant paid Rs. 170/- against the purchase of said bottle. It is further alleged that the complainant is having the video recording of all this incident on his mobile phone from which it clearly shows that the opposite party is cheating innocent people by selling the items for more than their MRP and even the opposite party refused to issue the bill in this regard. The above said act of the opposite party is against law and is an offence in the eyes of law and by his act the complainant is facing lot to harassment and mental agony. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 26.4.2022 through his counsel on 27.4.2022 to the opposite party but the opposite party has not bothered to reply the same. Thus, there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite party. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite party may be directed to pay Rs. 12/- excess charges.

2) To pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation of humiliation and harassment  of complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and file written version. It is alleged that the complainant visited the shop of opposite party and purchased one bottle of refined oil and alongwith one packet of soap the price which is Rs. 12/-, so the price of both the items was Rs. 170/-. It is denied that the opposite party demanded Rs. 170/- for the price of the oil bottle in actual the opposite party asked the complainant Rs. 170/- against the price of one bottle of oil and soap. The complainant filed the present complaint to bribe money from the opposite party and he mentioned wrong conversation in his mobile phone. It is also denied that the opposite party was cheating innocent people or charging more than the price of MRP of the goods. No offence is made out against the opposite party, complainant issued a false notice through his advocate to opposite party and no such notice was received by opposite party. Complainant after purchasing the refined oil bottle had never visited the shop of opposite party. In actual the complainant wants to blackmail the opposite party that he will edit the mobile conversation and will get Rs. 20,000/- from the opposite party. All other allegations are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

4. The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the opposite party and denied the averments as mentioned in the reply. 

5. In order to prove his case the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of legal notice Ex.C-2, postal receipt Ex.C-3, copy of print of bottle Ex.C-4, Pendrive Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence. 

6. To rebut the case the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Jagjit Singh Ex.OP-1 and the evidence of opposite party is closed by the order of this Commission dated 10.3.2023. 

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments filed by the parties.

8. In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1 vide which he reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint. He has further placed on record copy of legal notice dated 26.4.2022 Ex.C-2 which was sent to the opposite party and the Ex.C-3 is the postal receipt. The complainant also placed on record copy of printout of bottle of Kings Soyabean Oil Ex.C-4 & Ex.C-5 which shows the MRP (inclusive of all taxes) Rs. 158/- with batch No. (AO)SB09K01, date of packing & use by mentioned as 26 JAN 2022 & 25 JAN 2023. The complainant further placed on record Pendrive Ex.C-5 and after operating/opening the Pendrive and playing the video in Computer it is seen that the opposite party/owner of the shop admitted the fact that he has sold the above said bottle of refined oil for Rs. 170/- instead of Rs. 158 as mentioned on the bottle to the complainant. It is also seen in the video that the opposite party told the complainant that he will sell the above said bottle of refined oil for Rs. 170/- instead of Rs. 158/- (MRP) to the complainant because he purchased the same from the company above the MRP price and he wants to gain/make some profit on the purchase of said bottle. On the other hand, the opposite party has placed on record affidavit of Jagjit Sigh Ex.O.P-1 vide which he reiterated the averments as mentioned in the written version. Apart from the above said affidavit the opposite party has not produced any evidence to rebut the allegations of the complainant. No evidence has been produced by the opposite party regarding the purchase of the refined oil bottle from the company above the MRP. Further, no evidence produced by the opposite party regarding the purchase of one bottle of refined oil and one packet of soap the price of which is Rs. 12/-, so as to prove the price of both the items was Rs. 170/-.

9. So, from the perusal of the record it is well proved that the opposite party has sold the above said bottle of refined oil for Rs. 170/- instead of MRP Rs. 158/- (as mentioned on the bottle Ex.C-5) and charged the excess amount of Rs. 12/- from the complainant. It is further proved that the complainant has purchased the above said bottle of refined oil from the shop of opposite party (which shows from Pendrive video Ex.C-5). It is also the case of the complainant that the opposite party has not issued bill in this regard to the complainant and to rebut this fact the opposite party has nothing to say and due to the above said act and conduct of the opposite party the complainant has to file the present complaint. Therefore, we are of the view that the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party is writ large, as the opposite party intentionally and willfully sold the bottle of refined oil for Rs. 170/- instead of Rs. 158/- as mentioned on the bottle to the complainant and even did not issue bill in this regard. 

10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint against the opposite party and directed the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 12/- excess charged from the complainant. We further directed the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as an amount of Rs. 3,000/- on account of litigation expenses. 

11. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

12. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        22nd Day of March, 2024

 

            (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member