DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 387 of 16.9.2019

                                      Decided on:                             2.12.2022

Jasmeet Singh s/o Amrik Singh, # 89, Street No.7, Ghuman Nagar-B, Sirhind Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

More Retail Limited, Sirhind Road, adjoining Bhupindra Plaza, Opposite Hemkunt Petrol Pump,Sirhind Road, Patiala through its manager

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi,Member    

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Gurjit Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                                      None for the opposite party.  

 ORDER

                                      S.K.AGGARWAL,PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint is filed by Jasmeet Singh s/o Amrik Singh        (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against More Retail Limited ..(hereinafter referred to as the OP) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. It is averred that the complainant purchased a packet of Amul Moti Toned Milk 450ml and also Colgate Dental Cream Tooth paste of 200gm. It is further averred that the MRP of Amul Moti Toned Milk 450ml was Rs.25/- whereas the OP charged Rs.26/- for the same thereby charged Rs.1/- in excess. The complainant objected the same but to no effect. Thus, the OP has indulged in unfair trade practice. Consequently, prayer for acceptance of the complaint has thus been made.
3. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed the written statement. It is averred that Amul Moti Toned Milk used to come in 500ltr packaging with the MRP of Rs.26/- and the current change brought forth in a short notice, as a result of which old retail price remained in system alongwith new price of Rs.25/- for 450ml  and the cashier being a trainee picked the old price inadvertently. It is denied that complainant has ever objected and approached the OP with any issue. There is no malafide intention or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments, the OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove the complaint, the complainant has furnished his affidavit, Ex.C1 and also produced documents Ex.C1 copy of packet of milk, Ex.C2 original receipt,Ex.C3 copy of receipt and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, the OP furnished the affidavit, Ex.OPA of Hardeep Singh, its authorized representative and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant as none is appearing on behalf of the OP from last many dates, and have also gone through the available record of the case, carefully.
7. The OP in its written statement has admitted that the act of overcharging was not deliberate act but was due to human error. It is stated that Amul Moti Toned Milk used to come in packaging  of 500ml with the MRP of Rs.26/-which was changed to 450ml with the MRP of Rs.25/- over a short period due to which an amount of Rs.26/- was erroneously charged to the complainant.
8. We have gone through, Ex.C1 photo copy of packet of Amul Moti Milk and  observed that manufacturing date of the said packet is 23/07/2019 with the MRP of Rs.25/-whereas  the invoice,Ex.C2 generated for the said product is dated 23/8/2019, which has been issued after a month from the date of the manufacturing of the product. As such the plea of the OP that the price was changed over short period of time is not tenable as the date of invoice is more than 30 days old from the date of manufacturing of the product. Furthermore, the cashier while selling the product did not heed to the objections of the complainant regarding excess charging and charged Rs.26/- against MRP of Rs.25/-.
9. In stores like More from where the complainant had purchased the product, the products are codified with   product name/batch number and are then scanned at the time of sale of the product. The price of the product is then charged automatically by the system which has been already fed into it. It is surprising to note that the MRP of the product which has been revised for more than a month as per record of sale invoice and manufacturing date of the product (which may be actually more than one month) has not been updated in the system leading to overcharging from not only the complainant but all other consumers who had brought this product over the said period, which is unfair trade practice.
10. Due to the above circumstances, the complainant had to suffer harassment and mental agony. So we are of the view that compensation of Rs.5000/-be awarded to the complainant. The complaint is accordingly partly allowed and we direct the OP to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation inclusive of costs of the complaint.    

Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

PRONOUNCED

DATED:2.12.2022       

                                  G.S.Nagi                                         S.K.AGGARWAL

                                    Member                                       President