Haryana

Panchkula

CC/158/2018

SANJEEV KUMAR GARG. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S RELIANCE RETAIL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL KUMAR GARG.

14 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	158 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	04.09.2018
Date of Decision	:	14.01.2019

 

Sanjeev Kumar Garg, R/o H.No.43, (First Floor), Sector 18, Panchkula, Mob. No.9815119511.

 

                                                                                 ….Complainant

Versus

M/s Reliance Retail Limited, Reliance Fresh, SCO No.9, Sector 16, Panchkula through its Manager/In-charge.                                                                    

….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Satpal, President.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate for complainant. 

                        Op already ex-parte vide order dated 29.10.2018.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.     The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that on 06.06.2018, the complainant purchased some house hold articles including JHN BBSHM 200 ML B, Net Price 161.70/-, Qtu. 1, Value Rs.161.70/- vide Bill No.57, from the OP. After reaching the home, the complainant checked the bill with articles and price printed on the product and he was surprised to note that MRP of the product has been mentioned as Rs.156/- inclusive of all taxes whereas the complainant found from the bill that OP had charged Rs.161.70 which was higher even to the MRP. So, the complainant contacted the OP on phone regarding the charging of higher price than the MRP price printed on the product. The OP admitted his fault in charging the higher price than the one printed on the produce i.e. MRP Rs.156/- but refused to entertain the request of the complainant to refund the excess amount charged more than the MRP price from complainant. Thereafter, the complainant got issued registered legal notice upon the OP on 09.07.2018 through his counsel calling upon the OP to refund the amount of Rs. 161.70/- charged in excess than the MRP Price of Rs.156/- and Rs. 20,000/- as counsel being the costs of legal notice totaling Rs.20,161.70 within a period of 15 days of the receipt of this legal notice. Track report dated 30.08.2018, taken from the website of Indian Postal Service, for confirmation of the legal notice having been delivered on 10.07.2018 to the OP is annexed with the complaint; this act and conduct of the Op amounts to deficiency in service on his part; hence, this complaint.

2.     Notice was issued to the OP through registered post on 29.09.2018 vide registered post No.CH033396142IN, which was not received back either  served or unserved despite the expiring of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OP; hence, it was deemed to be served. However, none has appeared on behalf of the OP and thus, the OP was proceeded ex-parte by this Forum vide its order dated 29.10.2018.

3.     The ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.     We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and gone through the record minutely and carefully.         Upon perusal of the record, it has been found that the complainant purchased several households articles including JHN BBSHM 200 ml B bearing HSN No.3305 for an amount of Rs.645.87 from OP on 06.06.2018 vide bill No.57, dated06.06.2018 (Annexure C-1). It has also transpired that the OP has charged an amount of Rs.161.70 for JHN BBSHM 200 ml having HSN No.3305. The grievance of the complainant is not with regard to the quality of the items purchased by him vide aforesaid bill. However, his grievance relates to the overcharging of the price of the item namely, JHN BBSHM 200 ml. As per the version of the complainant, the OP had charged Rs.161.70 as against 156, which is MRP of the product as shown on the outer covering of the product itself. The complainant has placed reliance regarding the overcharging of the product upon photo image of the aforementioned product, which is available on record as Annexure C-2

        We have perused the photo image/outer covering of the product namely, JHN BBSHM 200 ml vide which it has been revealed that MRP of the said product is Rs.156/-. Further, we find no difference with regard to net quantity as 200 ml as per cash memo Annexure C-1 and photo image Annexure C-2. There is no doubt with regard to the fact that the OP vide bill No.57, dated 06.06.2018 has charged Rs.161.70 for the product namely, JHN BBSHM 200 ml as against the MRP of Rs.156/- as mentioned on the said product. There is no version of the OP as to why it has charged the price more than the MRP on the product. Moreover, we have found that legal notice Annexure C-3, which was sent to the OP by ld. counsel for the complainant and was delivered to him as revealed from the tract record Annexure C-5 on 10.07.2018, failed to evoke any response from the OP regarding the overcharging of the purchased item in question.

5.     It would not be out of place to mention here that the OP has preferred not to contest the present complaint and thus, we have unrebutted and uncontroverted version of the complainant which is duly supported by affidavit Annexure CA and documents Annexure C-1 to C-5. Thus, the averments made by the complainant duly sported by his affidavit Annexure CA are taken to be proved for want of any challenge to the correctness thereof.  In view of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that there was no justification on the part of the OP while charging the excess/more price than the MRP of the purchased item in question. Therefore, we attribute lapse and deficiency on the part of the Op while delivering services to the complainant; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

6.     As a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant by directing the Op to pay Rs.5.70 (Rs.161.70 – Rs.156=Rs.5.70) along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 04.09.2018 i.e. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization to the complainant. The Op is further directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.2100/- on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation charges.

7.     The OP shall comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

14.01.2019     RUBY SHARMA      JAGMOHAN SINGH           SATPAL

                          MEMBER               MEMBER               PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                         SATPAL

                                         PRESIDENT