DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 04 OF 2015
Milan Kumar Behera (43 Yrs),
S/O- Late Hemakanta Behera,
RO/PO/ PS: Laikera,
Dist: Jharsuguda,Odisha……………………………....……………Complainant.
Versus
M/S. BIG BAZAR ( Future Retail Ltd.),
Shanti City Centre, Beside Satsang Bhawan,
Sarbahal Road, Jharsuguda,
PO/PS/Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha…………………..….…..….…….....Opp. Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant Self.
For the Opp. Party Shri D.K.Jain, Adv. Associates.
Date of Order: 22.04.2015
Present
1. Shri S.K. Ojha, Sr. Member.
2. Smt. A. Nanda, Member(W).
Shri S. K. Ojha, Sr. Member: - This is the case filed by the complainant against the O.P as the O.P has taken excess price on the printed Maximum Retail Price (hereinafter referred as ‘MRP’) from the complainant on a consumer article.
The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, the complainant along with his family members while purchasing different consumer articles from the O.P on dtd. 11.01.2015, the O.P has charged Rs.212/- only on Horlicks bottle where the printed MRP on the said Horlicks bottle was Rs.202/- only. The complainant noticed the same after payment of the printed bill was issued to him. The complainant approached to O.P about the excess billing above the printed MRP but the O.P neither corrected the bill nor refunded the excess amount of Rs.10/- only to the complainant. The complainant visited to customer care of the O.P but no result has come out and after being harassed and tortured mentally, finding no other way, knocked the door of this Hon’ble Forum and filed this case for proper adjudication along with relevant documents.
The O.P. appeared through his counsel after being noticed admitting the fact of taking excess price in addition to the MRP printed on the said consumer article, but denied the allegations imposed by the complainant and submitted that the said mistake has been occurred at the electronic cashiering point due to technical mis- match in data uploading while scanning the concerned products as there is a large scale retail outlet where the O.P is dealing over one lakh articles every day. The O.P further submitted that the concerned customer care of O.P had offered to refund the excess amount of Rs.10/- only but the complainant has denied to accept the same. The alleged incident if at all occurred is a technical error and not an intentional one and denying the allegations of complainant prayed for dismissal of the case.
Heard and gone through the materials available. The complainant along with his family members had been to the shop of O.P to purchase household articles. After payment of bill amount issued to the complainant, the complainant noticed that the O.P has charged Rs.212/- only on the Horlicks Jar of 500gms. which was having the printed Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of Rs.202/- only. The complainant arose the question of excess billing of Rs.10/- only on the said Horlicks 500 gms. Jar but the authorized person on the cash counter did not take any heed, further the complainant visited to customer care, from there also he returned empty hand. In the contrary the O.P submitted that, the mistake of excess billing might have occurred at the electronic cashiering point due to technical mismatch in the data uploading while scanning the concerned products.
It is the matter Rs.10/- only overcharged on the product which may be compensated instantly by refunding the same to the particular consumer who verifies the bill after payment, but it will put to be very hard on the consumers who do not match / verify the bill with their products on good faith. The matter of excess billing has come out after raising of question by the complainant, but such activities might be happened since long past, where many innocent consumers could have beard their costs.
Though the O.P admitted the fact of mistake happened at the time of uploading the data after scanning but such types of mistakes can cause heavy costs on the part of consumers of the society as a whole which should be discouraged.
On the above observations and analysis, the adoption of unfair trade practice is clearly revealed on the part of O.P, hence, we allow the complaint petition with directions to the O.P in the form of order as follows;
ORDER
- The O.P. is hereby directed to make necessary correction in the computer system on the price of Horlicks 500gms. Jar, so also verify the prices of the other articles of the shop and make necessary correction on the same, if any.
- The O.P is hereby further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- ( Rupees one thousand) only towards the excess price taken, mental agony, harassment and cost of the case to the complainant along with deposit a fine of Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees five thousand) only in the account of ‘Consumer Welfare Fund’ in relation to unfair trade practice in proper procedure.
- The above mentioned orders are to be carried out within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which interest shall be charged @ 10% per annum till realization.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open court today the 22th day of April’ 2015 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule.
I Agree.
A.Nanda, Member (W) S. K. Ojha, Sr. Member
Dictated and corrected by me
S. K. Ojha, Sr. Member
