Order dictated by:

Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member

1.       The complainant  has brought the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the Complainant  is senior  citizen aged about 61 years and command good reputation in Moga and is heart patient and has gone bye-pass surgery. It is averred that the Complainant  has purchased medicines Gtimulin MF vide bill dated 9.12.2017 for Rs.122/- and the Complainant  was assured that they are charging the correct amount as per price list, but when the Complainant  went to his house and noticed that the Opposite Party has charged excess amount of 50 paisa from the Complainant. It is pertinent to mention over here that there is concession in purchase of medicine and retailer use to give 10%  less on every item. The Complainant  went to the shop of Opposite Party and requested that they have charged excess amount, but instead of listening the Complainant, they have insulted the Complainant  publicly and refused to return the amount and the Complainant  has to feel ashamed in the eyes of general public. In this way, the service rendered by the Opposite Party is in deficient and Complainant  has been harassed unnecessarily and Opposite Party is liable to refund the excess amount charged by them  and to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment and deficient service. The Opposite Party was asked to admit the rightful claim of the Complainant, but to no effect.   Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Party be directed to refund 50 paisa which they have charged in excess from the Complainant  and to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of compensation damages mental tension and harassment or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement. It is averred that the Complainant  purchased one strip of medicine having print rate of Rs.121.50 paisa and in rounded over the pharmacist of the Opposite Party made the bill of Rs.122/- in rounding off the amount. It is pertinent to mention over here that if the amount becomes Rs.121.49 paisa then the bill was to be issued for Rs.121/- and because the bill was for Rs.121.50 paisa and hence the bill was issued for Rs.122/-. But however, the Complainant  paid the amount of Rs.120/- to the Opposite Party in lieu thereof and went away. Hence, the averments made by the Complainant  are denied and not agreeable because  with minor meagre profit, the medicines are being sold by the Opposite Party. Thereafter, after purchasing the medicine, the Complainant  never turn up to the shop of the Opposite Party.  It is further averred that there is no such dispute ever arisen in past on the shop of the Opposite Party.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Ashok Kumar, proprietor of the Opposite Party firm Ex.OP1  closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party.

5.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the  Complainant  as well as Proprietor of the Opposite Party and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties.

6.       During the course of arguments, the  Complainant  has mainly contended and  reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and submitted that he has purchased medicines Gtimulin MF vide bill dated 9.12.2017 for Rs.122/-, copy of the bill accounts for Ex.C2 and the Complainant  was assured that they are charging the correct amount as per price list, but when the Complainant  went to his house and noticed that the Opposite Party has charged excess amount of 50 paisa from the Complainant. It is the further case of the  Complainant that there is concession in purchase of medicine and retailer use to give 10%  less on every item. Further contention of the Complainant  is that when he  went to the shop of Opposite Party and requested that they have charged excess amount, but instead of listening the Complainant, the Opposite Party has insulted the Complainant  publicly and refused to return the amount and the Complainant  has to feel ashamed in the eyes of general public. The Complainant  argued that the  service rendered by the Opposite Party is in deficient and Complainant  has been harassed unnecessarily and Opposite Party is liable to refund the excess amount charged by them  and to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment and deficient service.

7.       On the other hand, the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the Complainant  on the ground that the Complainant  purchased one strip of medicine having print rate of Rs.121.50 paisa and in rounded over the pharmacist of the Opposite Party made the bill of Rs.122/- in rounding off the amount. It is pertinent to mention over here that if the amount becomes Rs.121.49 paisa then the bill was to be issued for Rs.121/- and because the bill was for Rs.121.50 paisa and hence the bill was issued for Rs.122/-. But however, the Complainant  paid the amount of Rs.120/- to the Opposite Party in lieu thereof and went away. Hence, the averments made by the Complainant  are denied and not agreeable because  with minor meagre profit, the medicines are being sold by the Opposite Party. Thereafter, after purchasing the medicine, the Complainant  never turn up to the shop of the Opposite Party.  It is further averred that there is no such dispute ever arisen in past on the shop of the Opposite Party.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

8.       The only dispute between the  parties is that while selling the medicine in question, the Opposite Party has charged 50 paisa in excess from the Complainant  whereas on the other hand,  the contention of the Opposite Party in this regard is that Complainant  purchased one strip of medicine having print rate of Rs.121.50 paisa and in rounded of, the pharmacist of the Opposite Party made the bill of Rs.122/- in rounding off the amount. It is pertinent to mention over here that if the amount becomes Rs.121.49 paisa then the bill was to be issued for Rs.121/- and because the bill was for Rs.121.50 paisa and hence the bill was issued for Rs.122/-. It is the further case of the Opposite Party that  the Complainant  paid the amount of Rs.120/- to the Opposite Party in lieu thereof and went away. Hence, the averments made by the Complainant  are denied and not agreeable because  with minor meagre profit, the medicines are being sold by the Opposite Party to the customers. In this context, the Complainant  has not  rebut the averment of the Opposite Party regarding paying less amount i.e. Rs.120/- only, however, the Complainant  was having sufficient opportunity to rebut this contention of the Complainant  while tendering his evidence i.e. affidavit (which was lateron adduced in evidence after filing the written version by the Opposite Party) that he has paid Rs.122/- to the Opposite Party. It is settled  principle that if the amount of the bill becomes upto 49 paisa, then the seller can charge less amount i.e. by reducing 49 paisa and if the amount becomes  for 50 paisa, then the seller can charge excess amount i.e. 50 paisa more in rounded figures.  In such a situation,  we found no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. It appears that the Complainant  has some other grudge with the Opposite Party so he has filed the instant complaint for a meagre amount i.e. for 50 paisa only.  And for this purpose,  the Consumer Fora can not be used as a tool. Consumer Fora are established just only to give the justice to the genuine consumer and   not   to   misuse.  More-so, the Complainant  has claimed compensation of Rs.5000/- from the Opposite Party. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other.  

9.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the Complainant  is meritless and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum