Punjab

Patiala

CC/14/284

Jatinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Padam Car ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh R S Lakhan Pal

10 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

 

                                        Complaint No. CC/14/283 of 14.10.2014.

                                        Decided on:        10.02.2015.

 

Sumit Singla, aged 29 years son of Sh. Parshotam Dass, resident of House No.49, Braham Kumariya Street, Basantpura Mohalla, Cinema road, Nabha, Distt. Patiala.

                                                                          Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Easy Day, Bharti Retail Limited, Near Nirankari Bhawan, Opposite Ripudaman College, Nabha, Distt. Patiala, through its Branch Manager.

2. Easy Day, Orchid Centre, Ist Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector-53, Gurgaon (Haryana), through its Director.

                                                                            Opposite  parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh. D.R. Arora, President.

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member.

                                     

Present:                          Sh. Yogesh Khatri counsel for the complainant. 

                                       Sh. Dhiraj Puri counsel for opposite party no.1.

                                        

ORDER

 

D.R. ARORA:

1.       It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased 16 items vide retail invoice No.480563236501571719323 on 07.08.2014 for Rs.768/- from O.P no.1 and the said items included one Nivea Shaving Balm bearing batch no.400580868773. The complainant made the payment to the O.P with the help of his credit card of HDFC Bank Limited, Nabha, District Patiala.

2.       When the complainant reached his house, he opened the bag containing the goods and he found that the item mentioned at serial no.11 i.e. Nivea Shaving Balm was charged for Rs.225/- as against the MRP of Rs.199/-, printed on the box. The act of the O.P no.1 in having charged the excessive amount is said to be an unfair trade practice as also deficiency of service. The complainant informed O.P no.1 regarding the same immediately but O.P no.1 did not bother for the same and rather challenged him to do whatever he could. The complainant also informed about the incident to O.P no.2, franchisor of O.P no.1.

3.       It is further averred that the complainant got the O.Ps served with a legal notice dated 05.09.2014, who replied the same having admitted the claim of the complainant. The complainant is alleged to have suffered the harassment and the mental agony caused by the unfair trade practice as also the deficiency in service for which he claims a compensation in a sum of Rs.8 Lac qua harassment and Rs.1 Lac qua mental agony and therefore, he has brought this complaint against the O.Ps under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) also seeking a sum of Rs.22,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

4.       Here it may be noted that the cognizance of the complaint was taken against O.P no.1 only but the written version has been filed on behalf of both the O.Ps.

5.       In the written version filed by the O.Ps, they have raised certain preliminary objections, interalia, having denied the complainant being a consumer of them; that the complaint has been filed with an ulterior motive to extract money from the O.Ps; that the complainant has not suffered any loss or injury due to the act of unfair trade practice qua negligence on the part of the O.Ps and it is alleged that the complaint being frivolous and vexatious, same is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is denied by the O.Ps, for want of knowledge, that the complainant had purchased 16 items on 07.08.2014 from O.P no.1 vide retail invoice no.480563236501571719323 for Rs.768/- including the item mentioned at serial no.11 i.e. Nivea Shaving Balm. It is also denied, for want of knowledge, that the complainant had made the payment through his credit card of HDFC Bank Ltd., Nabha. Similarly the O.Ps have denied the other allegations made in the complaint. It is the plea taken up by the O.Ps that all the goods displayed in the store are systematically entered in to the computers and the price of the Nivea Shaving Balm was increased to Rs.225/-. When  a consumer purchases any good, the bar code in the computer shows the actual price. The actual price for Nivea Shaving Balm is Rs.225/-. It is denied that the O.P charged Rs.225/- excessively instead of Rs.199/-. It is denied that there was any unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. It is denied by the O.Ps that after finding the deficiency in service/unfair trade practice, the complainant had informed O.P no.1 regarding the same. The complainant has not suffered any harassment qua any mental agony and therefore, the O.Ps are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Ultimately, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.       In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex. CA, his sworn affidavit along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C10 and his counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand, on behalf of the O.Ps, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex. OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh. Ranjan Verma, Team Leader of O.P no.1 and closed their evidence.

7.       The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through evidence on record.

8.       Ex. C1 is the retail invoice dated 07.08.2014 issued by O.P no.1 regarding the sale of goods for Rs.768/- including the item at serial no.11 i.e. Nivea Shaving Balm for Rs.225/-. Ex. C2 is the slip issued by HDFC Bank Limited regarding the deposit of the said amount of Rs.768/- by the complainant with O.P no.1 through his credit card, a fact not denied by the O.P. The complainant has also produced Ex. C3 the copy of the statement for the period 19.07.2014 to 18.08.2014 in respect of credit card no.1671 of the complainant Mr. Sumit Singla showing the debit of Rs.768/- made from his aforesaid credit card in favour of Bharti Retail Ltd., Nabha.

9.       Ex. C5 is the photocopy of the two sides of card board box containing the product of Nivea showing the MRP of product as Rs.199/-. Ex. C6 is the copy of the bar code of the product. Ex. C4 is the card board box containing the product itself. The O.Ps have not denied in unequivocal term that the product was not purchased by the complainant from O.P no.1 and rather they have denied the same for want of knowledge. There is no question of O.Ps not getting the knowledge of the product sold by O.P no.1 vide retail invoice Ex. C1. They could very easily do so with the help of the record maintained by them that they sold Nivea Replenishing Post Shave Balm bearing PAP no.81300 and batch no.4005808687732 as printed blow the bar code. The O.Ps have not denied the issuance of the retail invoice Ex. C1 for Rs.768/- and further the plea taken up by the complainant that the said payment was made by him with the help of his credit card as would appear from Ex. C3 the copy of the statement of account of the said credit card for the period 19.07.2014 and 18.08.2014.

10.     Now coming to the plea taken up by the O.Ps that the price of the goods displayed for sale in the store, is already fed in the computer and that the price of the product in question had been increased to Rs.225/-, we do not find any substance in the same because the MRP of a product is to be printed by the manufacturer and the retailer has got no role to prepare its own computerized record and further to enhance the MRP printed on the product. In case for any reason the MRP of a product is enhanced, the retailer gets the written intimation from the manufacturer or its dealer in the form of a circular and only thereafter the retailer can paste a sticker regarding enhanced price. When a product is put on sale bearing MRP, a retailer has no discretion to enhance the MRP. The O.Ps have not produced any computerized record showing the enhancement of MRP of the product Ex. C4 from Rs.199/- to Rs.225/- and the data in that regard having been fed in the computer. After all the O.Ps would have enhanced the price of the product on the basis of some circular/letter, to have been received from the manufacturer or the authorized dealer and therefore, in the absence of any evidence, to have been led by the O.Ps, it would appear that O.P no.1 charged Rs.26/- in excess of the MRP, which certainly amounted to an unfair trade practice.

11.     It was submitted by Sh. Yogesh Khatri, the learned counsel for the complainant that the O.Ps are indulging in unfair trade practice in respect of the other goods or the similar goods with the other consumers and therefore a heavy amount of compensation may be awarded to the complainant so as to curb this malpractice on the part of the O.Ps.

12.     On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.Ps could not raise any plea except the one already taken up in the written version.

13.     We have considered the submissions and are of the considered view that the act of O.P no.1 having charged Rs.26/- over and above the MRP from the complainant regarding the sale of the product Ex.C4 certainly amounts to an unfair trade practice. No doubt the complainant cannot be said to have suffered a huge loss of Rs.8 Lacs as claimed by the complainant but we do appreciate the efforts made by the complainant to bring to light the unfair trade practice adopted by O.P no.1. Therefore, taking into account the enormity of the unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps and to encourage the consumers to bring to light such like malpractice, we deem it expedient and in the interest of justice to award him the compensation in a sum of Rs.25,000/- which is on account of unfair trade practice as also harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant and same is inclusive of cost of the complaint. The payment shall be made by O.P no.1 to the complainant within one month on receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which it shall be liable to pay the same with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint.  The product Ex. C4 be returned to the complainant after the expiry of the time allowed for appeal and in case the appeal is preferred after the disposal of the same.

Pronounced.

Dated: 10.03.2015.

 

                                                Neelam Gupta                D.R. Arora

                                                Member                         President