Punjab

Sangrur

CC/206/2016

Rajesh Kumar Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager/authorised Signatory - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Sat Paul Sharma

03 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                           

                                                Complaint No.  206

                                                Instituted on:    29.01.2016

                                                Decided on:       03.08.2016

 

Rajesh Kumar Singla aged about 45 years son of Shri Sham Lal, resident of H.No.B-IV/122, Patiala Gate, Near Banasar Bagh, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

Easy Day, Bharti Retail Limited, Shop No.573/B-2/573A, Mittal Hospital, Sunami Gate, Sangrur through its Manager/ authorised signatory.

                                                        …Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Satpal Sharma, Adv.

For opposite party    :               Shri Sumesh Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Rajesh Kumar Singla, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that on 22.10.2015 the complainant purchased some articles/things for his domestic use from the OP vide bill/invoice number 3467003010677 dated 22.10.2015 and paid Rs.2045.75. It is further averred that out of these items there was also one packet of Mangatram Arhar Dal bearing UPS code number 8906022205091 of which the OP charged Rs.262/- from the complainant for this item. It is further averred that the complainant purchased this packet of Mangatram Arhar Dal  for his personal use and its price was Rs.175/-. It is further stated that the complainant was surprised to see that while billing the above said articles, the OP charged Rs.262/- vide said invoice dated 22.10.2015, meaning thereby the OP charged Rs.87/- more than the price of the packet as the same was Rs.175/-, whereas the Op charged Rs.262/- from the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant immediately approached the OP for refund of the excess price charged by him, but nothing happened.    It is further averred that the excess charging from MRP is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Op, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant the excess amount of Rs.87/- charged from him and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In written reply filed by OP, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant has unnecessary dragged the OP into uncalled litigation.  On merits, it is admitted that the OP had sold the articles  on 22.10.2015, but it has been denied that the same were purchased by the complainant.  It has been stated that every consumer is vigilant in the modern era and similarly the person who purchased the packet of Mangatram Arhar Dal has also made the payment of Rs.262/- after verifying the print rate mentioned in the packet. It is denied that the complainant had approached the concerned employee or that they refused to reduce the price. It is submitted that in case any pricing issue is brought to the notice of the store manager or any store staff of the company, as a policy matter the same is immediately corrected and refund of the excess amount charged is given. It is stated further that the complainant is getting the undue advantage of the consumer law by using the tactics of pressure by filing the complaint in order to grab the big amount. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 photocopy of the wrapper and closed evidence,    On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has tendered Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 copies of the wrappers and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased a packet of  Mangatram Arhar Dal  for Rs.262/- from the OP, as is evident from the copy of bill dated 22.10.2015, Ex.C-2. Ex.C-3 is the copy of wrapper of Mangatram Arhar Dal showing that the printed price on the same was Rs.175/- only whereas the OP has charged Rs.262/- for the product, meaning thereby the OP charged Rs.87/- in excess.    In the present case, though the learned counsel for the OP has denied that the amount of Rs.87/- was charged in excess, but it is proved from the copy of wrapper Ex.C-3 that the OP has charged Rs.87/- in excess than the printed price as is evident from the product number 8906022205091 which has been mentioned on the retail invoice Ex.C-2 and copy of wrapper Ex.C-3.  Thus, it is beyond any doubt that the OP has charged Rs.87/- in excess from the complainant for the product as mentioned above. In the present case, the OP did not even opt to refund to the complainant, the excess amount of Rs.87/- to the complainant.  Under the circumstances, we find it to be a clear cut case of unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  The learned counsel for the complainant has also cited D.K.Chopra versus Snack Bar 2014(2) CPC 418 (NC), wherein the OP charged double price than the printed one i.e. printed price was Rs.75/- whereas the Op charged the price of Rs.150/-, thus the Hon’ble National Commission held it to be a case of unfair trade practice and directed the OP to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and further an amount of Rs.50 Lacs was ordered to be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund. We feel that this citation is fully applicable in the circumstances of the present case.  

6.             The learned counsel for the OP has contended vehemently that there is not an intention on the part of the OP in charging any excess amount, nor the complainant ever brought to the notice of the OP about the excess charging, as such, it is stated that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  But, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the OP, more so when, it is proved on record that the OP charged Rs.87/- in excess from the complainant. Further there is no explanation from the side of the OP why they charged in excess Rs.87/- from the complainant.

 

7.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.87/- and further to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and further to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- in Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained with this Forum. 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 3, 2016.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member