Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/40/2021

PRITHVI SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

05 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/40/2021
Date of Institution	:	08.01.2021
Date of Decision	:	05/04/2023

 

Prithvi Singh S/o Shri Chhabil Dass C/o Harco Bank, SCO 78-80, Sector 17B, Chandigarh 160017.

 

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

Manager Reliance Retail Limited Elante Mall, Plot No.178, Shop No.247 & 248, Industrial Area Phase-I, Near Tribune Chowk Chandigarh-160002.

… Opposite Parties)

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Counsel for OP

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Prithvi Singh complainant against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant purchased garments from the OP on 21.12.2020 vide tax invoice No.802111720521069 and No.802111720521070. The details of bills amount charged and to be charged are as under:-

Bills detail of reliance  Trends Chandigarh (21.12.2020) charged
Sr. No.	Item Name	Item Code	MRP	Discounted	Coupan discounted	Total discounted	Net value charged	Itemwise net value to be charged	Less coupan discount given out of Rs.3000/-
1.	Jacket	6204 (8907881347328)	3499	736.50	631.39	1367.89	2131.11	2131.11	631.39
2.	Shirt	6205 (8905044314873)	1699	357.62	306.58	664.20	1034.80	1034.80	306.58
3.	Shirt	6205 (890798758972)	1699	357.62	306.58	664.20	1034.80	1034.80	306.58
4.	Trouser	6205(8905094479171)	899.00	189.23	162.22	351.45	547.55	547.55	162.22
5.	Blazer	62038905187313252	4799	1010.14	865.98	1876.12	2922.88	2922.88	865.98
6.	Jacket	6203 (8907798892010)	4499.00	899.80	0.00	899.80	3599.20	3599.20	00
7.	Gift item induction cooktop	8516 (8904245805708)	3990.00	839.86	720.00	1559.86	2430.14	500.00	0.00
8.	Cotton Bag	42022220(8905094579925)	40.00	0.00	7.22	7.22	32.78	32.78	7.22
			21124.00	4390.77	2999.97	7390.74	13733.26	11803.12	2279.97

 

 

Discrepancies Bill summary	Item wise net value to be charged                 (Col. 6)	11803.12
	Less discount given of coupan (Rs.3000.00-Rs.2279.97) (Col. 7)	720.03
	Total Net amount to be charged	11083.09
	Amt. charged (10134.00+3599.00) (col.5)	13733.00
	Excess  amt. charged (13733-11083.09)	2649.91

 

The complainant was having discount coupon worth Rs.3000/- which were discounted on purchasing of garments. At the time of billing on counter, the cashier of the OP informed the complainant that there is gift scheme and in case the complainant pay Rs.500/- more then he will get one induction cooktop which will be given as gift. On this the complainant paid Rs.500/- more to  the cashier of OP and got one gift (induction cooktop) manufactured by Novacare Appliances Private Limited. However, when the complainant checked the item and bills, number of discrepancies were noticed which are also detailed as under:-

1. I purchased Seven items as mentioned above in detail (Sr.No.1 to 6, 8 & gift item at 7), but two tax invoice (bills) were issued. One bill should be issued.

ii. Value of gift item Rs.3990.00 was charged in my first bill instead of Rs.500/- as intimated by the cashier of Respondent as detail given in the above table.

iii. A sum of Rs.720.03 was less discounted out of discounted coupan worth Rs.3000/- as detailed given in above table;

 

iv. A total of Rs.2649.91 was charged in excess of total bill to be charged as mentioned in sub table above.

v.   The gift item is not "ISI" Mark which is dangerous for the life of its user.

vi. Guarantee card was not stamped and signed by any one (photo copy attached);

vii. Customer name & address was not mentioned in the bills (photo copy attached).

Thereafter on 22.12.2020 the complainant visited the OP and met the Manager and had informed him about the discrepancies and asked him to replace the induction cooktop with ISI mark and to refund the excess amount of gift item which has been adjusted in the amount of gift item charged and less amount of coupon not adjusted but with no result. Hence, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.

2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of  suppression of facts and also that the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands.  On merits,  it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the aforesaid garments and availed coupons offers and gift offer on one bill and also that the complainant was informed about the gift scheme by the cashier and the same was availed by the complainant. It is denied that there is any discrepancy in the invoices as alleged though it is admitted two invoices were issued to the complainant. It is also admitted that the value of Rs.3990/- was billed in the tax invoice but the amount of article deducted in the form of discount on all the articles and no extra charges were charged by the OP. It is correct that the OP has charged only Rs.499/- for induction in the complainant’s total bill of Rs.16626/- without any discount and Rs.3000/-  was deducted as coupon discount, Rs.3491/- was deducted as induction discount and the complainant had paid Rs.10134/-  as mentioned in the bill. In this manner no extra charge was charged from the complainant. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the  opposite parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant has purchased the aforesaid garments and availed coupons offers and gift offer on one bill and also that the complainant was informed about the gift scheme by the cashier and the same was availed by the complainant, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is  any discrepancy in the bills and the complainant is entitled for refund of excess amount and replacement of induction cooktop in question, if any as is the case of the complainant  or if no extra charges were levied by the OP as is the case of the OP.
   2.  A perusal of invoices available on the case file clearly indicate that though an amount  of Rs.3990/- was charged from the complainant by the OP as price of the induction cooktop  but the said amount of Rs.3000/- was adjusted by the OP against the price of garments purchased by the complainant, which fact has also been categorically referred by the complainant in the para 1 of the complaint. Moreover, it is admitted case of the complainant that though he was only given coupon of Rs.3000/-  on the payment of Rs.500/-  by him to the OP and further the said amount has been discounted in the other article purchased by the complainant from the OP, it is unsafe to hold that the OP has wrongly charged any amount from the complainant. So far as the case of the complainant that the cooktop item was not of ISI mark is concerned, there is no evidence on the file showing the induction cooktop was not having ISI mark. The complainant has also failed to prove this fact that the OP had supplied him induction cook top without ISI mark. Not only this, even other allegations made by the complainant in the complaint has not been proved by the complainant by way of documentary evidence and even no affidavit in the shape of evidence in this regard was filed by him. Hence, it is unsafe to hold that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part  of the  OP.   
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 05/04/2023 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member