Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/45/2018

Perminder Jeet Singh Ralla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager - Opp.Party(s)

In person

15 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.       :    45 of 2018

Date of Institution                             :    20.08.2018

Date of Decision                     :    15.01.2019

Dr.Perminder Jeet Singh S/o Amar Jeet R/o Village Urapar, District SBS Nagar.

                                                         ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Manager/MD/Proprietor, More Superstore, Aditya Birla Retails Limited, Near Saini Tyres, Nawanshahr, Opposite Baradari Garden, SBS Nagar.

2.       The M.D./Proprietor, Aditya Birla Group Headquarters Aditya Birla Centre, 3^rd Floor, S K Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai, India.

          …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         In person

For OPs                                   :         Sh.Sachin Kumar, Advocate  

 

ORDER

PER SH. KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1. Complainant filed present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by alleging that he purchased grocery items from OP-1 on regular basis without any doubt in the faith that this store is a brand store of OP-2 who has supermarkets in all over the country like OP-1 and cannot cheat to its customer. Allegedly, in this faith, he went to OP-1 on 04.08.2018 to get some grocery items and he purchased Haldiram’s nut cracker (snacks) along with other grocery items and paid Rs.359/- for the bill CM No.-1824-5778080209, Trans: 79676 by POS No.J5778 through his debit card and he paid Rs.92/- for 400 GMs Haldiram’s nut cracker (snacks).  When he reached to his home, he seen MRP on the packet of Haldiram’s nut cracker Rs.89/- which is Rs.3/- less than the OP-1 charged from him. By looking to this malpractice he phoned to OP for same issue but OP totally denied for over-charging. When he got no response from OP-1, he visited to OP-1 on very next day i.e. on 05.08.2018 and he was upset to see that OP-1 was still selling Haldiram’s nut cracker of Rs.89/-MRP with price of Rs.92/-. To double check this malpractice, he again purchased one packet of Haldiram’s nut cracker of Rs.89/- MRP and OP-1 again charged Rs.92/- for same with bill CM No.18244790086287, Trans: 85427 by POS No.J4790 through his debit card. Now picture was crystal clear for him that all this unfair trade practice was not due to any mistake or technical problem instead it was intentionally done & as he was not a single customer of this store lots of other customers also been cheated in the same manners. Moreover all the pricing system of these stores are managed from OP-2.  As he was cheated by both OPs decided to press the alarm & he sent notice to both the OPs through his email ID and on their face book as they provided way of communication on its website and gave them five days to respond but even after ten days both the OPs neither contacted him nor replied to his notice and by this he was mentally shocked to feeling cheated.  Lastly, it is prayed that his complaint be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.80,000/- as damages for mental torture/tension and financial loss/physical harassment etc and Rs.20,000/- also claimed as litigation cost.
2. Upon notice, OPs have appeared through counsel by stating therein that OPs are providing best of its services to the customers with due diligence and utmost care and make every endeavor that intentionally or un-intentionally no harm or loss to its esteemed customers. There is no malpractice being committed by OP with complainant, but it was an inadvertent mistake.  After receiving the intimation in this regard, Kamaljit Singh (the then city operation Manager) called up the complainant on 07.08.2018 and had a word with him regarding his grievance during his visit at SBS Nagar. Aforesaid cluster Manager also requested the complainant to meet him but since complainant was not in town so he told that he will meet the official of OPs next time.  Again, Mr. Kamaljeet Singh met the complainant and offered him a gift hamper but he was demanding unreasonable compensation which was not feasible.  The reason for excess charging of produce in question was because of IT error which was inadvertent and this mistake on the part of store team was not intentional nor willful but an inadvertent mistake which was not done intentionally.  Lastly, it is prayed that mistake occurred  inadvertently by OPs, and complaint be dismissed.
3. To prove his complaint, the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith photocopies of documents i.e. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.  In rebuttal, counsel for Ops has tendered affidavit of Kesar Singh as Ex.OPA and closed the evidence.  
4. We have heard the learned counsel for OPs and have also gone through the written arguments of complainant and record carefully.
5. Both the parties argued by way of oral and written similar to their respective pleadings. So no need to reproduce for want of repetition.  Complainant has referred some citation in his written arguments.  From the copy of wrapper Ex.C-3, it is evident that the M.R.P. of the purchased product is Rs.89/-(inclusive of all taxes). On the retail invoice, Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, issued by the OP -1, the price of the purchased product has also been mentioned as Rs.92/-. However, the OPs after adding, on this amount has raised the bill for Rs.92/ -. It may be stated that as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act,2014, no extra amount over and above the M.R.P., printed on the goods can be charged, even the same has been sold on discount, as M.R.P. has already been inclusive of all taxes levied on the goods. In the case titled as M/s Aeroclub (woodland) Versus Rakesh Sharma, Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016, decided on 04 Jan 2017 , the Hon’ble National Commission has already held that “In our opinion, therefore, the defence of the Petitioners that they had charged VAT as per law is of no avail in so far as the issue at hand, viz. misleading advertisement, resulting in unfair trade practice, is concerned.  We are in complete agreement with the Fora below that any discount falling short of “Flat 40% on the MRP would amount to unfair trade practice, as defined in the Act”
6. Since the OPs have charged excess price of the product, in violation of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act,2014, therefore, it has not only committed deficiency in service but also indulged in to unfair trade practice. Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint against the OPs with a direction to refund the amount charged extra from the complainant and also to pay Rs.4,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant and Rs.2,000/- allowed as litigation expenses. The OPs have no right to keep and misappropriate the public money.  It must go back to the public.  We, therefore, order that the OPs will deposit a sum of Rs.4,000/-, the estimate rough amount, with the consumer Welfare fund of this Forum.  The OPs are further directed to comply the aforesaid order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realization.
7. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated:  15.01.2019

(Kanwaljeet Singh)       (Kuljit Singh)

Member                         President