Punjab

Sangrur

CC/432/2017

Robin Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

More Store - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Shubham Goyal

03 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  432

                                                Instituted on:    01.09.2017

                                                Decided on:       03.11.2017

 

 

Robin Goyal son of Shri Parveen Goyal, resident of Street No.2, Mubarak Mehal Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

More Store, Aditya Birla Retail Limited, Sunami Gate, Near IDBI Bank, Roxy Road, Sangrur through its Manager.

                                                        …Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Shubham Garg, Adv.

For opposite party    :               Shri Ajay Aggarwal, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Robin Goyal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that on 02.08.2017, the complainant visited the store of the Op to purchase some articles for domestic use, as such he purchased the goods vide bill dated 2.8.2017 for Rs.188/- including the item ‘one packet of Post it Page Markers’ for which the OP charged an amount of Rs.50/-.  The grievance of the complainant is that though the printed rate of the product Post-it Page Markers was Rs.45/-, whereas the OP charged Rs.50/- for the same, meaning thereby the Op charged Rs.5/- in excess than the printed price.  The complainant requested the OP to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.5/-, so excess charged, but the OP did not hear the genuine request of the complainant and refused to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.5/- charged by him in excess and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In written reply filed by the OP, though it is admitted that the bill belongs to the opposite party, but it is stated that the date over the same is not readable and the full particulars of the items purchased are not readable.  It is stated that the OP has not indulged in any unfair trade practice.  It is stated further that the price charged is only a technical error which has been corrected in the records of the Opposite party and there is no malafide intention on the part of the OP.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 copy of product, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7 are products and closed evidence.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has tendered Ex.OP-1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact of the complainant that he visited the store of the OP on 2.8.2017 to purchase certain items including the one item namely Post-it Page Markers for Rs.50/-, as is evident from the copy of the bill Ex.C-2 on record.  Though the OP has contended that the date on the bill is not visible, but it is admitted that the bill belongs to the store of the OP.  It is worth mentioning here that a bare perusal of the bill Ex.C-2 clearly shows that it bears transaction number 95199 from where whole of the record in the computer can be generated, if the date of sale of the product is not visible with the naked eye.  So, we feel that the Op has tried to conceal the date of sale of the product. Now, the dispute raised by the complainant is that the Op charged an amount of Rs.50/- for the product Post-it Page Markers, whereas its printed price is Rs.45/- only, meaning thereby the Op is not entitled to charge more than the MRP (maximum retail price), as is evident from the copy of bill Ex.C-2 on record and the copy of product is Ex.C-3, which shows that its MRP is Rs.45/- only.  Ex.C-1 is the affidavit of the complainant to support his allegations in the complaint.     On the other hand, the only stand taken by the OP is that the date on the bill is not visible, but as mentioned above, a bare perusal of invoice Ex.C-2 clearly shows that it bears transaction number 95199 from where, whole of the data of the bill can be obtained from the computer installed by the OP, but the OP tried to conceal this material fact.  It is worth mentioning here that the OP should come to the Forum with clean hands.  Since it is settled law that a party who does not come to the Forum with clean hands is not entitled to any claim. Under the circumstances, we find it to be a clear cut case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  The learned counsel for the complainant has also cited Satyam Cinplexes versus Mark Paul 2006(3) CPJ 12, wherein the OP charged Rs.40/- for a bottle water against the printed price as Rs.12/- only, wherein it has been held by the Commission that hotel, restaurant or Cineplex cannot charge more than price and further it was held to be deficiency in service as OP adopted unfair trade practice  and was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- in common welfare fund and to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant.   Further the learned counsel for the complainant has also cited Zaika Bazar versus Hemant Goel 2007(2) CPJ 96, wherein it was held that it is not open for the Op to charge higher price than MRP and punitive damages of Rs.50,000/- were imposed for depositing the same in favour of Consumer Welfare Fund.  Further in another case namely, D.K.Chopra versus Snack Bar 2014(2) CPC 418 (NC), wherein the OP charged double price than the printed one i.e. printed price was Rs.75/- whereas the Op charged the price of Rs.150/-, thus the Hon’ble National Commission held it to be a case of unfair trade practice and directed the OP to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and further an amount of Rs.50 Lacs was ordered to be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund. We feel that the above citations are fully applicable in the circumstances of the present case.  

 

6.             The learned counsel for the OP has contended vehemently that the OP has charged nothing excess nor there was any intention on the part of the OP in charging any excess amount, nor the complainant ever brought to the notice of the OP about the excess charging, as such, it is stated that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  But, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the OP, more so when, it is proved on record that the OP charged Rs.5/- in excess from the complainant by selling the product Post-it Page Markers. Further there is no explanation from the side of the OP that why the OP charged an amount of Rs.5/- in excess from the complainant.

 

7.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.5/- and further to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and further to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- in Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained with this Forum.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                November 3, 2017.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

                                       

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member

 

 

 

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                        Member