DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

CC No. 47 of 24-02-2021

Decided on : 13-4-2023

Dharampal Goyal aged about 45 years S/o Yashpal Goyal R/o Bajakhana, Distt. Faridkot.

​........Complainant

Versus

Mobile Store, Shop No.24/25, Ground Floor Mittal Mall, Bathinda through its Prop.

.......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM:-

Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member

Present:-

For the complainant : Sh. Arun Mittal, Advocate.

For opposite party : Ex-parte.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President:-

1. The complainant Dharampal Goyal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) have filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Mobile Store (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).

2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that on 13.11.2020 he visited the shop of opposite party for purchase of Iphone and desired to purchase Iphone-12 Pro,128 GB and opposite party disclosed the rate as 1,19,990/- of the said mobile. It was also disclosed by the opposite party that if the complainant paid the amount through credit card, then they will charge 2% separately, which will be paid in cash and he also disclosed that the complainant can take the benefit of 13000/- cash back. Accordingly complainant got ready to swipe his HDFC Bank credit card opposite party swiped the credit card two times and withdrawn the amount of Rs.69.900/- in one terms and again Rs.62,000/- was withdrawn in other terms. In this way the total withdrawn amount was Rs.1,31,900/-, which was excess to the tune of Rs.12,000/- from the actual rate disclosed by the opposite party. When the complainant asked about excess amount of Rs.12000/- then the opposite party disclosed that he will receive Rs.13000/- as cash back, whereas the cash back was to be received from the amount of Rs.1,19,900/-.

3. The complainant alleged that the opposite party swiped/withdrawn the amount of Rs.1,31,900/-, but issued the bill of Rs.1,19,900/-. The opposite party also received Rs.2300/- in cash i.e. 2% amount for depositing the amount through credit card from the complainant.

4. It is further alleged that when the complainant checked the swiped receipts he noticed that receipt of Rs.62,000/- was of Samsung Mobile Tab S-7, LTE which was not purchased by the complainant and the other receipt of Rs.69,900/- was of Phone-12 Mini, which was also not purchased by the complainant, whereas the complainant purchased Iphone 12 pro 128 GB.

5. The complainant further alleged that he visited the shop of the opposite party to get clarification regarding swipe receipt then the opposite party replied that he got the bill amount Rs.1,31,900/- in total, so what if opposite party swiped the credit card two times. The complainant asked the opposite party about bill receipts which opposite party handed over to him of another phones i.e. Samsung Mobile Tab-S-7 and Iphone 12 mini, then opposite party said he did this because he would also get merchant cash back from both the bills i.e. Rs.2970/- and Rs.3720/-. The merchant cash back was also mentioned on the swipe receipt.

6. It is also alleged that the opposite party illegally and fraudulently charged a sum of Rs.12,000/- in excess from the complainant. The complainant requested the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.12,000/- to the complainant or take back the said Iphone and return the amount of Rs.1,31,990/- and Rs.2300/- but the opposite party refused to accede to the requests of the complainant. Due to act and conduct of opposite party the complainant suffered from great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and humiliation for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

7. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.12,000/- charged in excess from him and pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation in addition to Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

8. Registered A.D. Notice of complaint was sent to the opposite party but none appeared on its behalf. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against it.

9. In exparte evidence, complainant tendered his affidavit (Ex. C-1) and documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4).

10. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record.

11. The counsel for the complainant has relied upon affidavit of the complainant (Ex. C-1) and Tax Invoice (Ex. C-2) which is in respect of one Iphone-12 Pro, 128 GB worth Rs. 1,19,900/-. A perusal of receipts Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4 shows that the amount of Rs. 66,929.25 was received from the complainant vide Ex. C-3 in respect of Iphone-12 mini and Rs. 58,280/- in respect of Samsung Mobile Tab S-7, which clearly shows that inspite of the fact that opposite party sold Iphone-12 PRO 128 GB worth Rs. 1,19,900/- to the complainant and said act has been done with an intention to receive merchant cash back of Rs. 2970.75 and Rs. 3720/-. The entire manipulation was done by the opposite party by swiping the card of the complainant two times and failed to refund the amount of Rs. 12,000/- received in excess as mentioned in Ex. C-2 i.e. Rs. 1,19,900/-. From the documents Ex. C-2 and receipts Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4, it is clearly made out that opposite party is indulging in business malpractice by swiping cards of consumers to get merchant cash back in an illegal manner and also denying the cash back to the customers. Accordingly, complainant has fully established deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party of having received Rs. 1,31,900/- through two difference swipe card transactions and issued bill for Rs. 1,19,900/- and received Rs. 12,000/- in excess.

12. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 12,000/- to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 13-11-2020 till realization. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to complainant as damages on account of mental tension, harassment and cost of litigation.

13. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite party within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

14. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

15. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced :

    13-04-2023

    ( Lalit Mohan Dogra)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member