By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1.The complaint in short is as follows:-
The case of the complainant is that he approached the opposite party for Colgate toothpaste on 23/09/2020, attracted by the offer price of the opposite party. The grievance of the complaint is that the opposite party collected excess amount than the maximum retail price of the product displayed on the product. The complainant approached the opposite party and informed amount the collection of the excess price but the response was to purchase the same from any other shop and the opposite party is only prepared to give the product on the price billed by the opposite party. The complainant alleged that the opposite party insulted the complainant in front of the other customers. The complainant alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The submission of the complainant is that the opposite party collected Rs. 5/- in excess of MRP and so seeking direction to refund the same along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and cost of Rs. 25,000/-.
2. On admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the entire averments and allegations in the complaint.
3. The opposite party admitted that the complainant purchased Colgate Max Fresh Blue Gel 300 gram (150gr + 150 gr) as per the bill produced by the complainant dated 23/09/2020. As per the bill produced by the complainant it can be seen that the MRP of the product as Rs. 170 /- and it is sold for Rs. 169 /-. The verification of the document produced by the complainant, the product Colgate Max Fresh Blue Gel 300 gram (150gr + 150 gr), it is worth Rs. 164/-. The opposite party submitted that the product produced by the complainant as per the bill is not actually the product purchased by the complainant. According to the opposite party, the product produced by the complainant is of Colgate Max Fresh Blue Gel combo offer worth Rs. 184/-and the price is Rs. 164/- after deducting the offer amount of Rs. 20/-. The complainant exactly produced the bill sold Colgate Max Fresh Blue Gel 300 gram (150gr + 150 gr) 2 tubes comprised paste after deducting Rs.20/- and which is sold for Rs. 170/-. The opposite party issuing bill under technology supported system and it is generated after verification of barcode. So there is no chance to manipulate the bill and in case occur any mistake, it can be corrected through manual support. There were no defects to the scanners or the billing computer on 23/09/2020 or thereafter. In addition to that the opposite party submitted that there was no stock of the product which the complainant claims purchased from the opposite party on 23/09/2020. On that particular day, the stock register reveals only 28 pieces of the product and only one piece was sold on that date. So the document shows that the complainant purchased the product worth Rs. 170/- and the bill was issued to the complainant duly.
4. The opposite party submitted that the opposite party is a well-known establishment at the locality and they are availing articles to the public at a lower price. The allegation of the complainant is baseless and to make exorbitant monitory benefits out of malicious complaint. Hence the prayer of the opposite party is to dismiss the complaint with the cost of the opposite party.
5. The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A3 and MO.1. The opposite party documents marked as Ext. B1 to B4 and MO.2. The complainant was examined as PW1. Ext. A1 is bill dated 23/09/2020. Ext. A2 is photo copy of cover print of Colgate tooth paste. Ext. B1 is copy of stock report. Ext. B2 are the series of invoice. Ext. B3 is a photograph of Colgate toothpaste packet which reveals MRP. 164/-. Ext. B4 is copy of photographs of Colgate toothpaste packet reveals price as Rs. 170/-. MO.1 & MO.2 are the toothpaste in disputes.
6. Heard complaint and opposite party, perused affidavits, and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
- Relief and cost?
6.Point No.1 and 2 :-
The case of the complainant is that he approached the opposite party for toothpaste and he purchased the same from the opposite party as per Ext. A1. The bill reveals the rate of the product as Rs. 169/-. The complainant produced MO.1, the product purchased by the complainant from the opposite party which reveals the MRP as Rs.164/-. The grievance of the complaint is that the opposite party collected excess amount of Rs. 5/- from the complainant and on submitting his complaint before the opposite party, he was insulted and asked him to purchase the same from outside anywhere and they are only willing to deliver the article for the said price as per Ext. A1. The complainant alleges unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party.
7. The opposite party submitted that on that particular day there was no stock of the product produced by the complainant, which reveals from Ext. B1 document. The submission of the opposite party is that though the bill produced by the complainant was issued from the opposite party the product produced by the complainant as part of the same is not delivered from the opposite party. The opposite party alleges only to harass and defame the opposite party, the complainant filed this malicious complaint. The submission of the opposite party is that there is no chance to manipulate the bill since it is generated on scanning the barcode of the product. It is further submitted that if there was mistakes, it could have been manually corrected.
8. On perusal of affidavit and documents, we are not inclined to accept the version of the opposite party that on that particular day only single piece of product was sold and there was no stock of the product produced by the complaint before the Commission. The opposite party admitted that the bill was issued to the complainant but the product was not the produced one by the complaint before the Commission. It cannot be accepted that the complainant with the intention of defaming the opposite party filed a false complaint before the Commission and traced a product to file this complaint The Commission also do not admit the complaint filed by complainant was to make financial benefit out of the complaint. It is evident from the deposition of the complainant before the commission that “എനിക്ക് ഒരുരൂപ പോലും ആവശ്യമില്ല. എന്നെ പരസ്യമായി അപമാനിച്ചതിന് അവർക്ക് ശിക്ഷ നൽകുകയാണ് വേണ്ടത്”. The above deposition reveals that the complainant was insulated from the opposite party shop during the time of purchase of the product. The opposite party submitted that there is enough staff with them who are duly trained also. But the incident reveals the staff of the opposite party require more training in the matter behaviour towards consumers, It is not proper to conclude that for the financial benefit of Rs. 5/-, the opposite party indulged in the unfair trade practice. But the response of the staff of opposite party towards the consumer was really curtailing the right of consumer which is protected under consumer protection act and resultantly the complainant filed this complaint before this Commission. Hence considering the entire aspects we consider the grievance of the complainant and opposite party is liable to pay reasonable amount of compensation to the complainant and for which the Commission fix the same as Rs. 10,000/-. The complaint was filed on 03/11/2020, but it was prolonged due to various reasons and most of the occasions the complaint was protracted due to non-compliance of statutory requirement from the side of complainant. It is admitted that for a short period the complainant was laid up, but that is not sufficient reason to justify the lack of non-compliance of statutory requirements. Hence we allow cost of Rs. 3000/- and which the opposite party is directed to deposit in legal benefit fund. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with cost of Rs. 25,000/-. The claim of the complainant is an exorbitant one without any basis. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we allow the complaint as follows:-
- The opposite party is directed to refund the excess amount of Rs. 5/- (Rupees Five only) to the complainant.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and thereby caused inconvenience and hardship.
- The opposite party is directed to deposit Rs. 3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) in the legal benefit fund of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , towards the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite party is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of order till date of payment.
Dated this 29thday of May , 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1
PW1 : Nirmal.P (Complainant)
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 & A2
Ext.A1 : Bill dated 23/09/2020.
Ext.A2 :Copy of cover print of Colgate tooth paste.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B4
Ext.B1 : Copy of stock report.
Ext.B2 : Series of invoice.
Ext.B3 : Photograph of Colgate toothpaste pack reveals MRP. 164/-.
Ext.B4 : Photograph of Colgate toothpaste pack reveals MRP. 170/-.
Ext.MO.1 : Colgate toothpaste pack reveals MRP. 164/-.
Ext.MO.2 : Colgate toothpaste pack reveals MRP. 170/-.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
