Punjab

Sangrur

CC/347/2016

Jhanda Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s More Shopping mall - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

13 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 347                                                                                        

                                                                   Instituted on:  05.04.2016

                                                                   Decided on:    13.06.2016

 

Jhanda Singh son of S. Didar Singh Guru Tegbahadur Colony, Street No.3, Opposite Inderpal Filling  Station, Sangur.

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

M/s More Shopping Mall ( Aditya Birla Retail Ltd.) Near IDBI Bank Roxy Road, Sunami Gate, Sangrur.

      ….Opposite party.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    In person.                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY     :     Exparte.                     

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Jhanda Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that he purchased a bottle of  deodorant spray  of Old Spice 150 ml  on 24.03.2016 under bill number Cm no. 2571091905  Trans: 117711 Pos no.J2571.  The MRP of the product was Rs.155/- but the salesman of the OP issued a bill for this product as Rs.180/- and also received Rs.180/- instead of Rs.155/- from the complainant. Thereafter the complainant told the salesman of the OP that cost of the product was Rs.155/- then he said that now the bill has been punched in the computer so he cannot return the money.  The complainant again requested the salesman then he told the complainant to come tomorrow as the Manager was not available. The complainant visited the OP next day but the staff of the Mall refused to return the money. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OP be directed refund an amount of Rs.25/- as excess charged,

ii)     OP be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.30000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)     OP be directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notice was served to the OP but despite service OP did not appear and as such OP was proceeded exparte on 04.05.2016.

3.             In his exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of retail invoice Ex.C-2 and copy of old spice deodorant spray Ex.C-3 and closed evidence.

4.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that the complainant had purchased a bottle of  deodorant spray  of Old Spice 150 ml  on 24.03.2016 under bill number Cm no.2571091905  Trans: 117711 Pos no.J2571 which is evident from copy of retail invoice Ex.C-1 on record. The complainant's specific case is that salesman of the OP had deducted Rs.180/- from 500 rupees note of the complainant instead of Rs.155/- which is price amount of the product in question. From a perusal of the retail invoice Ex.C-2, we find that on 24.03.2016 the product in question was purchased under  CM no. 2571091905  for an amount of Rs.180/- but in the lower portion of the said retail invoice in the column of payment summary  it has been mentioned that cash    Rs.500/- and  change Rs.320/-. We have also perused  Ex.C-3 which is photocopy bottle of Deodorant spray Old spice  purchased by the complainant  and find that on the upper side of it, it is printed as  Rs.25/- off and  below  it has been printed as Rs.180/- minus Rs.155/-.  Further, it has been mentioned that  MRP incl. of all taxes Rs.25 off on MRP. So, from the perusal of the Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, they clearly show that the price amount of the product in question is Rs.155/- after Rs.25/- off but the salesman of the OP charged Rs.180/- from the complainant. So, in our view, it is clear cut  unfair trade practice on the part of the OP as they charged Rs.25/- excess from the complainant. The OP has not come forward to contest the case of the complainant rather it chosen to remain exparte. As such the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted.  

5.             For the reasons recorded above, we find  that there is unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and as such we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP  to pay a consolidated amount of compensation  of Rs.20,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.10,000/- will be paid to the complainant  and remaining amount of  Rs.10,000/- will be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.

6.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                June 13, 2016

 

 

 

  ( Sarita Garg)    ( K.C.Sharma)          (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                        Member          Member                                President

 

 

 

BBS/-