BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.08 of 2023
Date of Instt. 05.01.2023
Date of Decision: 15.05.2024
Jasbir Singh, aged 42 years, son of S. Dalip Singh, Resident H. No.12, Kirpal Sagar Colony, Near IOC, Bye Pass, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
Metro Cash & Carry India Pvt. Ltd., Mustalil No.18, Village Reru, Tehsil Jalandhar-II, Jalandhar-144012, Punjab.
….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Complainant in Person.
Sh. BKS Chhabra, Adv. Counsel for the OP.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant had purchased 3 pieces of Organic Honey from the OP on 26.11.2022, whose MRP is Rs.225/-, but they charged Rs.242.16 more than MRP (total of 3 pieces 726.40), which is also verified by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs. The complainant informed the OP about price issue (more than MRP), the OP told to bring product as well as original bill, they took back product instead of refund they gave credit note. Complainant purchased other things on that day and told them to adjust credit note but OP refused to do so they said it will take time, may be more than one month, but credit note means refund of money same time. As per terms and conditions, credit note has to be reimbursed same time not after one month, and OP also kept the product also. The complainant forwarded email to OP on 5th December 2022 at th December, 2022 for refund but they again refused. The Department of Consumer Affairs also verified that OP charged more than MRP, with grievance number 4065581, they filled a Challan/Case booked against them for excess charging. The act and conduct of OP amounts to unfair trade practice and the OP is guilty of deficiency in service and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the claim amount Rs.726.49/- and to pay damages for causing mental tension and harassment to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and with interest @ 12% per annum on the claim amount w.e.f. November 26, 2022 till the same is paid to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint filed before this Commission is not maintainable either on facts or in law and is clear abuse of the process of this Commission. It is further averred that the present complaint does not fall within the definition of a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act as there is neither any unfair trade practice adopted by the answering OP nor any deficiency in service has been established against the OP. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased 3 pieces of Organic Honey from the OP on 26.11.2022, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. It is admitted and proved that the complainant had purchased 3 pieces of Organic Honey from the OP on 26.11.2022 as is evident from Ex.C-1 also. The complainant has alleged that the OP charged Rs.242.16, whereas the MRP was Rs.225/- per piece. The OP gave three pieces for Rs.726.40, which is evident from Ex.C-1. When the complainant brought this fact of charging excess money to the OP, they issued credit note as per Ex.C-2. It was told to the complainant that the credit note shall be adjusted on the next purchase. The complainant has further alleged that when he purchased the products/articles from the OP next time, the OP did not adjust the credit note. The complainant has made representations/complaint to the customer care, the OP, the head of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Department. The emails have been proved by the complainant as Ex.C-3, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5. Perusal of Ex.C-6 shows that he purchased the products from the OP on 29.12.2022 also, but the credit note was never adjusted. The original product was retained by the OP.
7. The contention of the OP is that the complainant has never approached them for the adjustment of the credit note, which was to be refunded after the one month of the purchase of the product as per the norms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the complainant has filed false complaint, but this contention is not tenable. The OP themselves have proved on record Ex.R-2 the report of Legal Metrology Punjab. Vide this letter, the notice was issued to the OP as during the inspection, some irregularities were found in the declarations on packages kept for sale and there were other complaints of excess charging were also there. As per Ex.R3, the OP moved application for compounding the offence u/S 48 of Metrology Act, but no document has been filed on record to show the result of the application. The OP has alleged that the excess charges were levied due to the billing system at the time of purchase by the customer as the billing processes are computerized and the discrepancy occurred, but the OP has failed to prove how there was mistake in the billing system of the computer. No policy terms and conditions have been filed on record by the OP to show that the refund was to be made after one month of the purchase of the product. Though, the OP had told the complainant that credit note means refund of money, but actually the money was never refunded. He had to approach different sources to get the refund, this is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP as they have charged more amount than the MRP mentioned on the product. The complainant has proved that he was harassed as he had to knock the door of Ministry of Consumer Affairs also to seek the relief and refund of Rs.726.49/- and thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.
8. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OP is directed to pay Rs.726.49/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 26.11.2022, till its realization. Further, OP is directed to pay a compensation including litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
15.05.2024 Member Member President
