DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  348

                                                Instituted on:    19.07.2017

                                                Decided on:       06.10.2017

Narpinder Singh son of Shri Balwinder Singh, resident of Village Gobindpura Nagri, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant.

                                Versus

M/s. G&G Associates, Shop No.4-5, Fun Square Mall, Dhuri Road, Village Akoi Sahib, Sangrur through its Manager.         

                                                        …Opposite party

For the complainant  :       Shri Lovepreet Walia, Advocate.

For OP                     :       Shri Rajnish Verma, Adv.

Quorum:   Sarita Garg,  Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.

1                      Shri Narpinder Singh, 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 15.07.2017, the complainant approached the OP and purchased  one drawing book vide invoice dated 15.07.2017 for Rs.35/-.  But the grievance of the complainant is that the OP charged Rs.35/- for the said drawing book, whereas its printed price was Rs.30/- only, meaning thereby the Op charged an amount of Rs.5-/- in excess from the complainant, which is totally illegal and amounts to unfair trade practice as the Op charged the more price.  The complainant immediately brought the mater to the knowledge of the OP for refund of the amount of Rs.5/-, but all in vain. 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 it in excess than the printed price  and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that the Op was proceeded exparte on 16.08.2017, but thereafter the OP filed an application for setting aside the exparte order dated 16.8.2017, but such application dated 16.8.2017 was also dismissed by this Forum vide its order dated 11.09.2017.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 original drawing note book and closed evidence.

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint 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 that the complainant had purchased one drawing note book for Rs.35/- from the OP, as is evident from the copy of bill dated 15.07.2017 Ex.C-2 on record. Ex.C-3 is the original drawing note book duly purchased by the complainant from the OP, which clearly shows that its  printed price is Rs.30/- only whereas the OP has charged Rs.35/- for the product, meaning thereby the OP charged Rs.5/- in excess than the printed price on the drawing note book in question.    In the present case, though the learned counsel for the OP has denied that the amount of Rs.5/- was  charged in excess, but it is proved from the drawing note book, Ex.C-3 that the OP has charged Rs.5/- in excess as is evident from the product number 890411020508 (drawing note book) which has been mentioned on the retail invoice Ex.C-2.  Thus, it is beyond any doubt that the OP has charged Rs.5/- in excess from the complainant for the product as mentioned above. In the present case, the OP did not even opt to refund to the complainant the excess amount of Rs.5/- to the complainant.  Under the circumstances, we find it to be a clear cut case of unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  The learned counsel for the complainant has also cited 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 this citation is fully applicable in the circumstances of the present case.  

6.             The learned counsel for the OP has contended vehemently that there is no 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. Further there is no explanation from the side of the OP why they charged in excess Rs.5/- 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.10,000/- 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.

                October 6, 2017.

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                             Presiding Member

                                                          (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                     Member