Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/196

Kunal Soffat - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Reliance Trends - Opp.Party(s)

Kunal Sofat Adv.

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.196 of 20.03.2015

Date of Decision            :   30.11.2015 

 

Kunal Sofat s/o Sh.Sat Pal Sofat, 57 Friends Colony, Pakhowal Road, Village Daad, Ludhiana.

 

….. Complainant

Versus

 

Prop/Partners of M/s Reliance Trends 89/1, Tritech Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana.

 

…Opposite party

                   

                    (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :         In person

For OP                           :         Sh.Sahil Sharma, Advocate

 

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant Sh.Kunal Sofat filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’) against the OP, by claiming that he purchased some kids garments from the store of OP on 8.3.2015 vide invoice No.C7023/0023 of amount of Rs.872.50P. All these items were purchased from the store and they were having discount tag displayed thereon. As per that tag, sale rate was of Rs.499/-, but discount was 50%. After discount, the cost of item was of Rs.249.50P, but OP charged Rs.275.50P from the complainant. It is claimed that in this way, Rs.26/- was charged as excess amount. After paying the amount, complainant pointed out to the Manager of Store for calling upon him to refund the amount, but he turned down the request. It is claimed that OP store charging the excess amount from others also and in this way, Rs.3 lacs per month is charged in excess. Prayer made for stopping this kind of cheating and imposing heavy penalty on OP. Rs.1,99,000/- claimed as compensation.

2.                In the written statement submitted by OP, it is claimed that complainant visited the store of OP and purchased some of the apparels in promotional offer sale. Due to certain barcode error, the billing computer erred in capturing the corresponding discount on the purchased item. However, at the time of cross checking of the bill entries, the billing staff of the OP and complainant pointed out the error qua excess charging of amount of Rs.25/- only. The billing staff/Manager apologized to the complainant for the inconvenience caused. The erroneously charging of the excess amount(not reflected in the bill) was agreed to be deducted from the bill amount and OP agreed to refund the said amount to the complainant, but the complainant was not ready to accept the same. Op charged Rs.275.50/- from the complainant on the purchased item of kids apparels priced at Rs.499/- with discount of 50%. After discount, the payable amount by the complainant was of amount of Rs.249.50P, but the OP charged Rs.275.50P from the complainant erroneously. Op as a goodwill gesture is ready to compensate by paying an additional sum of Rs.500/-. Question of payment of compensation arose only if charging of the excess amount is deliberate. No such loss or injury accrued to the complainant due to negligent or deliberate act on the part of OP and as such, complainant not entitled to any compensation.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with document Ex.CW1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Kuldeep Kumar and then closed the evidence.

5.                          Oral arguments alone addressed by both the parties. Written arguments have not been submitted. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties as well as from the produced affidavits, it is made out that excess amount has been charged. The bone of contention remains as to whether this excess amount of Rs.25/26 charged due to error in barcode or deliberately. Complainant claims that this amount was charged deliberately, but OP claims that error occurred due to barcode error. Barcode error was liable to be corrected by OP and not by the complainant. So even if the excess charged amount of Rs.26/- may be due to error in barcode, but despite that the complainant has to pay excess amount of Rs.26/-. However, as Op has expressed desire to refund the excess charged amount with compensation of Rs.500/- and as such these circumstances enough to point out as if OP have no intention to harass the complainant unnecessarily. Rather OP themselves have opted to pay compensation of Rs.500/- and as such, some fault on the part of OP is there.

7.                As per law laid down in case Sevanivrit Karamchari Evam Upbhokta Sauroksham Samiti vs. Kunj Homeo Pharmasi and others-I(1998)CPJ-94(Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow), in case due to action of over-charging the price of the product, no mental agony or harassment is caused to the complainant, then compensation should not be allowed. In this case before us very minor mental agony or harassment can be said to be caused to the complainant due to over-charging of the price amount. The excess charged amount is just of Rs.26/- and as such, in view of the minor inconvenience caused to the complainant, we deem it fit to grant an appropriate amount of compensation of Rs.1000/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.1000/-.

8.                Complainant himself is pursuing the complaint and as such, he had to pay for typing charges or fee on the complaint only. In view of this, litigation expenses of Rs.1000/- alone allowed.

9.                Complainant vehemently contends that due to  over-charging           the amount loss to the general public is caused in lacs and ill                          earning  of OP in lacs is there and as such compensation of Rs.2 lakh should be allowed. Perusal of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reveals that a complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered may be filed by consumer to whom such goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or by any recognized consumer association, whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or service provided or agreed to be provided, the concerned consumer is member of such association or not or by one of more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having same interest provided. The permission of District Forum,       on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all the consumers so interested in filing such complaint have been obtained. In the case before us, the present complaint has been filed by complainant in relation to the goods purchased by him and he has not sought the permission of this Forum to file the complaint on behalf of other numerous consumers and as such, compensation to complainant for the loss due to over-charging of the price caused to the numerous consumers cannot be allowed. As the complainant has filed the complaint in individual capacity and as such, compensation has to be allowed for some of the minor mental agony and harassment caused to him only.

10.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint allowed in terms that Op will refund the excess charged amount of Rs.26/- and will also pay compensation of Rs.1000/- and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of these orders be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copies of the order. Copies of order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules.

11.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

         

                                      (Sat Paul Garg)                            (G.K.Dhir)

                                   Member                                            President

Announced in Open Forum                                         

Dated:30.11.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.