cccccPBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of November 2012
Filed on : 03/08/2012
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 476/2012
Between
Vinod Kumar, : Complainant
Flat No. B4E, Kalpaka Gardens, (party-in-person)
Chalikkavottom, Vytilla,
Cochin-682 028.
And
Manager, : Opposite party
Food Bazar (By Adv. K.B.Gangesh,
(Future Value Retail Ltd), Remede, T-19, 3rd Floor,
Gold Souk Grande, Ponnurunni, Empire Buildidng, Opp. High
Vytilla Post, Cochin-682 019. Court (East Gate), Old
Railwaly Station Road,
Kochi-18)
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
On 29-07-2012 the complainant purchased articles worth Rs. 1336.15 from the opposite party. The complainant verified the items and its price in the bill and found that for 3 items the opposite party charged more than the maximum retail price printed on the product. They are as follows:
Sl. No. | Item | MRP | Amount charged |
1 | Sach Liquid Hand wash (SACH HW NEM TUL 250M) | Rs.49.00 | Rs. 60,00 |
2 | Pooja Camphor (Shyam Krishna OTHPO) | Rs.20.00 | Rs. 25,00 |
3 | Pooja Camphor (Shysam Krishna OTHPO | Rs.20.00 | Rs. 25.00 |
Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to refund the excess price together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party since the opposite party is only an employee of the company. Future Value Ltd. a company. The entire billing system is fully computerized. Occasionally it so happens that when fresh stock of product arrive with price variation even before the old stock is completely sold out, the difference in price go unnoticed and is not entered into the system. It is thus the product was happened to be billed at a price higher than that was printed on the packet. On receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the complainant was immediately contacted and on behalf of the company expressed unconditional apology and refund of the excess price was offered . However the complainant refused to accept the offer and rushed to this Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. 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 Points that came up for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complaint is maintainable against the opposite
party ?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the
excess price of the items from the opposite party?
iii. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay compensation
and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?
5. Point No. i. According to the opposite party the opposite party is only an employee of a company namely Future Value Retail Ltd. and the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party an employee of the company. We are not to agree with the contention of the opposite party especially since the opposite party is the authorized signatory of the company who is responsible evident from the vakalath filed by the opposite party. The contention goes without any merit.
6. Point No. ii. Admittedly the opposite party levied an excess price of Rs. 11/- for the liquid hand wash and Rs. 5/- for the pooja camphor than the maximum retail price. Legally the opposite party is not entitled to collect the price of goods more than the MRP. The complainant is entitled to get the excess price refunded from the opposite party which amounts to Rs. 21/-.
7. Point No. iii. The levying of price above the maximum retail price amounts not only to deficiency in service but also to unfair trade practice. The opposite party contented that the anomaly has been caused due to their inadvertent mistake but nothing is on record to substantiate the contention of the opposite party. The opposite party being a big Super Market division as claimed by them should have redressed the grievances of the complainant as and when he approached them in which they failed in the first instance not only that the opposite party claims to be a big super market Division and that they failed in efficiency of service, definitely calls for answerability to a consumer which can not be whatever the costs and consequences. We fix the compensation and costs of the proceedings at Rs. 2,000/-.
8. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:
i. The opposite party shall refund Rs. 21/- to the complainant
having been levied in excess as admitted by the opposite
party, the excess price with 12% interest p.a. from the date
of purchase till realization.
ii. The opposite party shall pay Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant
for having dragged a consumer to unnecessary litigation.
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.
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 retail invoice
A2 : Copy of publication
A3 : “ “
A4 : “ “
Opposite party’s Exhibits : Nil
