Punjab

Sangrur

CC/192/2019

Charanjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

More Super Market - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Tarun Goyal

08 Nov 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                  

                                                Complaint No.  192

                                                Instituted on:    07.05.2019

                                                Decided on:       08.11.2019

 

Charanjit Kaur aged 29 years wife of Harpal Singh, resident of Village Bangawali, Sangrur, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant.

                                Versus

1.             More Super Market, Aditya Birla Retail Ltd. Head Office 86/92, 5^th & 6^th Floor, Andheri East Mumbai 400059 Near Mittal Commercial Estate, Opposite Wellington Business Park, Mumbai through its M.D.

2.             More Super Market, Aditya Birla Retail Ltd. Khala 873, Mehal Mubarak Colony, Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its Store Manager.           

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Tarun Goyal, Advocate.

For OPs                    :       Ms.Prerna Verma, Asstt. Manager.

 

Quorum:   Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

                Ms.Vandana Sidhu, Member

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member

ORDER:  

Shri Vinod Kumar Gulati,Member

1                      Smt. Charanjit Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 29.7.2018, the complainant visited the outlet of OP number 2 for purchasing some household goods and the complainant also purchased one pack of tooth paste Mark CLOSE UP TOOTH PASTE RED HOT WEIGHING 150+150 gram = 300 Grams against invoice CM No.329667246001450 dated 29.7.2018 of Rs.265/-.  The grievance of the complainant is that after checking the bill the complainant astonished to see that the OP number 2 charged Rs.145/- for one pack of tooth paste mark Close Up, whereas its MRP was Rs.140/-, meaning thereby the OP charged Rs.5/- more than the MRP printed on the product. The complainant immediately brought the mater to the knowledge of the OP and requested for refund of the amount of Rs.5/-, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.5/- charged by it and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In written reply filed by the OPs, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.  It is stated that the complainant be put to strict proof of her statement that she made purchases from OP number 2. It is stated further that it is the manufacturer of the product who decides the price/MRP of the product and prints it on the pack/outer covering.  Further the manufacturer can change the price/MRP at its sole discretion at any time and can also have different price/MRP for different batches of same product. It is further stated that MRP of Close Up toothpaste combi pack so purchased from OP number 2 was amounting to Rs.145/- and was therefore invoiced at Rs.145/- in the bill given to the complainant whereas the MRP of one attached with the complaint is of Rs.140/- and may have been purchased from some other place or some other time and is from some other batch of production than the one purchased from OP number 2 store on 29.7.2018.  It is stated further that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands as any customer who is suffering from harassment shall not approach the Court after belated period of nearly 10 months as during this period of 10 months, the complainant never approached the Ops.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit and Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-3 copies of documents and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the leaned counsel for OPs 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 dismissal, for these reasons.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that on 29.7.2018, the complainant visited the outlet of OP number 2 for purchasing some household goods and the complainant also purchased one pack of tooth paste Mark CLOSE UP TOOTH PASTE RED HOT WEIGHING 150+150 gram = 300 Grams against invoice number CM No.329667246001450 dated 29.7.2018 of Rs.265/-.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended further that after checking the bill complainant astonished to see that the OP number 2 charged Rs.145/- for one pack of tooth paste mark Close Up, whereas its MRP was printed as Rs.140/-, meaning thereby the OP charged Rs.5/- more than the MRP printed on the cover of the product. The complainant immediately brought the matter to the knowledge of the OPs and requested for refund of the amount of Rs.5/-, but all in vain and the OP number 2 flatly refused to refund the amount of Rs.5/- so charged in excess from the complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended that it is the manufacturer of the product who decides the price/MRP of the product and prints it on the pack/outer covering.  Further the manufacturer can change the price/MRP at its sole discretion at any time and can also have different price/MRP for different batches of same product. It is further stated that MRP of Close Up toothpaste combi pack so purchased from OP number 2 was amounting to Rs.145/- and was therefore invoiced at Rs.145/- in the bill given to the complainant whereas the MRP of one attached with the complaint is of Rs.140/- and may have been purchased from some other place or some other time and is from some other batch of production than the one purchased from OP number 2 store on 29.7.2018.  It is contended further that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands as any customer who is suffering from harassment shall not approach the Court after belated period of nearly 10 months as during this period of 10 months, the complainant never approached the Ops.          

6.             Learned counsel for the Ops during the course of arguments strongly contended that the complainant could not prove on record that the Wrapper Ex.C-1 produced by him along with the complaint was of the same product, he purchased from OP2. Further, this complaint filed after gap of more than 10 months gives rise to suspicion that the complainant might had been waiting to procure the wrapper of the product with a MRP of Rs.140/- which had been lesser than that of the bill (Ex.C-2) he produced along with his complaint and did not submit any statement on oath that the wrapper of the product produced by him in the complaint belongs to the same product, he purchased from OP 2. Besides this, production of wrapper without the contents after the period of 10 months is not understandable and further argued that that MRP of the product can be derived from the batch number of the product which in this case as mentioned above was on the crimp of the product and the same has not been produced by the complainant. It seems that the complainant has deliberately not submitted the original purchased product before this Forum so as to avoid the detection of the original MRP. From going through the contents written on the wrapper, we have observed that it is clearly written on the wrapper that “for batch number of the product crimp on the tube of the product may please be refer to” and the same has not been produced by the complainant. The said point was not rebutted by the counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments and also at the time of rebuttal. It is well established fact that Consumer Protection Act has come into being for saving the consumer from being exploited. It is not meant for making quick money by making purchaser millionaire over right. In this regard, reliance can be placed on decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in FA-847 of 2017 titled as Dr.Uttam Kumar Samanta vs
Vodafone East Limited. In view of the above discussion, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his allegations against Ops and as such, we find no merits in the complaint and the same deserves to be dismissed.

7.             As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.             This complaint could not be decided and order could not be pronounced within stipulated time period because post of President is vacant since 7.8.2018 and Lady Member since 16.09.2018. The President is doing additional duty only for two days a week.

                Pronounced.

                November 8, 2019.

                                                                                                              

 (Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Vandana Sidhu) (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

           Member                 Member                 President