Ameen Ahmed,S/o Abdul Majeed, filed a consumer case on 07 Feb 2008 against M/s.Big Bazaar, in the Bangalore 2nd Additional Consumer Court. The case no is CC/2510/2007 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Date of Filing:15.12.2007 Date of Order: 07.02.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2510 OF 2007 Ameen Ahmed, S/o Abdul Majeed, R/at No.760, 28th B Main, Jayanagar, 9th Block East, Bangalore-560 069. Complainant V/S M/s Big Bazaar, No.45/1, Marenahalli, J.P. Nagar, II Phase, Bangalore-560 011. Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This complaint is filed by complainant to return the amount of the product and compensation. The facts of the case are that, the complainant had purchased Vatika Henna Cream Conditioning Shampoo from the opposite party on 13/12/2007 vide receipt No.T26/5525. The rate of the product is mentioned as Rs.42/-, but the Cashier accounted the product for Rs.45/- including the VAT. The complainant questioned the Cashier as to how he could take out the bill for Rs.45/- when the MRP itself is only Rs.42/-, to which he said that since the product has already been billed, it cannot be cancelled. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Manager. The Manager enquired as to why he charged more the value of the product. As a matter of fact, the Cashier ought to have charged only Rs.40/- after giving discount of Rs.2/-. The Cashier said that since the customers would not have observed the price on the product, therefore charged the amount of Rs.45/-. Hence, the complaint. 2. Notice was issued to opposite party by RPAD. Opposite party has not appeared before the forum and remained absent and he placed exparte. Arguments of complainant heard in person. 4. The points for consideration are:- 1. Whether there was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation? REASONS 5. The complainant has produced Big Bazaar bill dated 13/12/2007 for having purchased Vatika Henna Cream Conditioning Shampoo. The amount shown in the bill is Rs.45/- for the item. The complainant produced the item before the Forum and we perused the same and the MRP price printed on the item was Rs.42/-. Therefore, it is clear that the Big Bazaar charged more than the MRP price and collected the amount from the complainant. The complainant during the course of argument had produced another bill dated 7/1/2008 and in that bill also the price of the Vatika Henna Cream Conditioning Shampoo shown as Rs.45/- and the amount was received by the opposite party and the complainant produced the article and demonstrated that the MRP printed in the said Vatika Henna Cream Conditioning Shampoo was Rs.42/-. Therefore, the Big Bazaar had again collected more than the MRP price from the complainant. Trader or service provider is not entitled to charge and collect price of the goods more than the MRP price. It is unfortunate that the opposite party is a very big business house not only in Bangalore, but in other cities in India. Big Bazaar is considered to be a reputed business house, it has charged the price more than the MRP printed on the item. This is definitely a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Though the amount and loss suffered by the complainant is very small or negligible amount, but the complainant has taken courage to approach the Forum. This is only a kind of example. The Big Bazaar might have collected the amount more than the MRP price in respect of other items and also from large number of customers. Therefore, the complainant has made the opposite party to open its eye and take immediate corrective steps. So that the employees or the Manager of the business house shall not collect amount more than the MRP price. In some departmental stores and Malls te articles are being sold below the MRP price. But in this case, the opposite party Big Bazaar collected the price more than the MRP price. This is not fair and justified act. The Consumer Protection Act is enacted to safeguard the better interest of the consumers. Protection of the consumers is the need of the society. The Apex Court described the present day social scenario and the reasons for protecting the consumers had observed one of its judgments as under:- ............. Various legislations and regulations permitting the State to intervene and protect interest of the consumers have become a heaven for unscrupulous ones as the enforcement machinery either does not move or it moves ineffectively, inefficiently. The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the market economy. It attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer which he faces against powerful business, described as, a network of rackets or a society in which, producers have secured power to rob the rest and the might of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked. The malady is becoming so rampant, widespread and deep that the society instead of bothering, complaining and fighting against it, is accepting it as part of life. The enactment in these unbelievable yet harsh realities appears to be as silver lining, which may in course of time succeed in checking the rot. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant requires to be accepted and the complainant in this case deserves appreciation because, he had spent time and money and asserted his rights indirectly and he has protected rights of the other consumers also. The opposite party has not appeared and contested the matter. The facts stated by the complainant have gone unchallenged. The opposite party remained absent even though served with notice. It appears that opposite party has no defense to make. Therefore, it did not choose to contest the matter. Therefore, it is fit case to allow compensation to the complainant. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- and costs of Rs.500/- to the complainant immediately. The opposite party is directed to send the amount as ordered above to the complainant directly by way of D.D or Cheque with intimation to this Forum. 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.