Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/154

Gurjant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Multipurpose CASS Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

N.S.Wahniwal

10 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      154

Date of Institution:  13.11.2014

Date of Decision :   10.04.2015

 

 

Gurjant Singh s/o Baldev Singh r/o Village Wara Bhai Ka, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.                                    

 ...Complainant

Versus

1. The Multipurpose Cooperative Agricultural Sewa Sabha Ltd, Wara Bhai Ka through its President.

2. Ginder Singh,Secretary, Multipurpose Cooperative Agricultural Sewa Sabha Ltd, Wara Bhai Ka.

3. Jagsir Singh Sale Manager, Multipurpose Cooperative Agricultural Sewa Sabha Ltd, Wara Bhai Ka.

                                                          ...Opposite Parties (Ops)

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mehta, President,

               Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh N S Wahniwal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

             Sh Ajaypal Singh Sandhu, Ld Counsel for Ops.

(A K Mehta, President)

                        Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against The Multipurpose Cooperative Agricultural Sewa Sabha Ltd, Wara Bhai Ka  through its President and others/Ops seeking directions to OPs to refund Rs 59/- excessively charged from complainant and to pay Rs 50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony and for physical harassment.

2                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant visited the Sales Office of the Multipurpose Cooperative Agricultural Sewa Sabha Ltd, Wara Bhai Ka for purchase of household articles and also purchased TIDE detergent powder and when complainant came home, he noticed that the Tide detergent powder was sold to him for Rs 550/-, but the sale price for the said product was Rs 491/- only and then, complainant visited the Sales Office of OP and asked for refund of the excess charges taken by OP-3, but OP-3 refused to make the refund on the ground that the Tide detergent is for sale at Rs 550/-only and not for Rs 491/-and thereafter, complainant made repeated requests to OP-1 and 2, but all in vain; that news items were also published in daily Spokesman regarding the said illegal, unauthorised and unfair trade practice adopted by the Ops, but inspite of repeated requests before Ops and the news items, the Ops are reluctant to accept the requests of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for directing the OPs to refund Rs 59/- alongwith Rs 50,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses. Hence, the complaint.

3                                    The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 18.11.2014, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                       On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in this form and is liable to be dismissed; that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear, try and decide the present complaint and complainant has filed the present complaint by concocting a false story with legal brain only to harm and harass the answering Ops and out of greed to get compensation on wrong facts and he is wasting the precious time of the Forum as well as of Ops and therefore, complainant should be burdened with special compensatory costs. However, on merits, Ops denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant has purchased the house hold goods from the answering OP, but Ops purchased the said Tide Powder from M/s Darshan Kumar Banarsi Dass (whole seller), Bus Stand, Bargari at the rate of Rs 500/- per packet and the said concern had gained the profit of sale of said Tide Powder from the answering Ops; that over and above the retail price of goods, the Ops have to bear the carriage charges and other expenses including the welfare works of the villagers and the Society has also to gain profits/commission for welfare of Society Members and others etc; that Ops used to sell said goods after including such types of expenses and accordingly, the amount of Rs 50/- charged by the answering Ops is quite nominal and is as per the norms of the society; that the said profit on the goods being sold by answering Ops is being deposited in the Saving Account of the Society for the welfare of the villagers and Society; that Society is selling the said goods against the proper bills and the regular accounts are also being maintained by the answering Ops and as such, no illegality is committed by Ops; that neither complainant asked the Ops for refund of alleged excess amount nor complainant has any right to claim the same; that Ops reserve their right to initiate criminal proceedings against the complainant for defaming the status and reputation of the answering Ops and also reserve their right to file Civil litigation for claiming compensation against the complainant and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

6                                           Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                   In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Sh Jagsir Singh tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-6 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the evidence and documents on the file.

 9                                       The Ld Counsel for complainant contended that complainant is a resident of village Wara Bhai Ka, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot and used to purchase house hold articles from the shop maintained by Multipurpose Cooperative Agricultural Sewa Sabha Ltd, Wara Bhai Ka. He contended that on 30.10.2014, complainant purchased house hold articles including Tide Detergent Powder from the above Society shop. He contended that as per wrapper of Tide Detergent Powder Ex C-2, the maximum retail price of the Tide Detergent Powder was Rs 491/- but on reaching his house, complainant came to know on checking the bill that the OP Society has charged Rs 550/- for Tide Detergent Powder i.e Rs 59 excess than the maximum retail price. He contended that OP Society cannot charge more than the maximum retail price which is a trade mal practice on the part of Ops. He contended that complainant contacted the Incharge of Ops’ Sale Office and requested him to refund the excess price charged by the salesman but the Manager flatly refused to refund the excess amount and rather stated that the Ops have charged the correct price and are not liable to refund any amount to the complainant because Ops have charged the price as per norms fixed by the Society but the said  norms have not been produced on file nor any rules have been quoted vide which the OP Society have charged the excess price. He contended that complainant visited the office of Ops and requested many times for refund of excess price but with no effect and this conduct of OP Society has caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such, complaint is required to be allowed and OP Society is required to be directed to refund the excess price charged by it and is also liable to pay compensation and litigation expenses because complainant had to file the complaint due to conduct of the Ops.

10                                            Ld Counsel for Ops admitted that complainant is a resident of village Wara Bhai Ka and had purchased household articles including Tide Detergent Powder on 30.10.2014, but he contended that OP Society had charged the proper price from the complainant for Tide Detergent Powder as Ops have purchased the said Tide detergent powder from the open market i.e from the shop of Darshan Kumar Banarasi Das, Bargari at the rate of Rs 500/- per packet as is clear from the bill Ex OP-5. He contended that OP Society have passed a resolution Ex OP-2 vide which, OP Society is to purchase the articles from the open market and to sell the same to the public after charging profit as the same is required to defray daily expenses of the Society and as such, Op Society has charged correct price from the complainant. He contended that the OP Society charged only Rs 50/- as profit and the Society deposited the same in its bank account, which shows that the salesman has not charged the excess price, rather price was charged as per norms of the Society in accordance with the resolution passed by the Society and as such, complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed to defame the Society and is liable to be dismissed.

11                                                        Admittedly, Ops Society is running a sales office vide which it sells house hold articles to villagers and public. It is also admitted fact that complainant purchased the household articles including Tide detergent powder from Ops on 30.10.2014. It is also an admitted fact that maximum retail price of Rs 491/-is printed on the packet of detergent powder, whereas OP Society charged Rs 550/- from the complainant vide bill Ex C-3. The only plea put forward by the OP Society is that the OP Society has passed a resolution to purchase the articles from the Markfed and if any article is not available in the Markfed depot, then the same be purchased from the open market and to charge normal profit in order to defray the expenses of Society. The contention of the OP Society is that the Tide detergent powder was not available in the Markfed depot and that is why, purchased from the shop of M/s Darshan Kumar Banarasi Das, Bargari at the rate of Rs 500/- and Rs 50/- was charged as normal profit and as such, OP Society have rightly charged Rs 550/- from the complainant. The wrapper of the tide detergent powder is proved as Ex C-2. It shows that the maximum retail price of the Tide detergent powder is Rs 491/- and this fact is also admitted by the OP Society. The plea taken by the OP Society is that it purchased Tide detergent powder from the open market at the rate of Rs 500/- vide bill Ex OP-5 and after charging normal profit of Rs 50/-, it sold the same to the complainant at the rate of Rs 550/-, but a seller cannot charge price more than the maximum retail price fixed for an article or mentioned on the goods. Section 2 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides that it is one of the allegations for filing a complaint in the Consumer Forum if trader has charged for the goods a price in excess of price fixed by any law for time being in force or displayed on goods or any packet containing such goods. The maximum retail price of Rs 491/- is displayed on the wrapper of the Tide detergent powder as is clear from Ex C-2 and OP Society  has admitted that it charged Rs 550/- for the same i.e excess price than printed or displayed on the goods. Moreover, Section 2 (1) (r) defines unfair trade practice and clause 9 of the said section provides that if any trader adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice, which materially misleads the public concerning the price at which a product or like products or the goods or services, have been or are, ordinarily sold or provided, is an unfair trade practice. As such, OP Society have no right to charge any amount more than the amount fixed or mentioned on the goods. No credit can be given to the OP Society if the OP Society has purchased goods at any price more than the fixed or displayed price because if the OP Society had given price more than the fixed or displayed price then it has done so at its own peril but it does not give any right to OP Society to charge more than the price fixed or displayed on the goods. As such, OP Society have used unfair trade practice and is liable to refund the excess price. OP Society had not refunded excess price inspite of many requests and visits of complainant and it must have caused harassment and mental agony to complainant for which he is also entitled to compensation and the conduct of the OP Society has compelled the complainant to file the complaint in hand.

12                                 In the light of above discussion, complaint succeeds and the same is hereby allowed in favour of complainant and against Ops and complainant is held entitled to refund of Rs 59/- from the OP Society which it has charged excess than fixed price and complainant is also held entitled to Rs 1000/-as compensation and Rs 1000/-as litigation expenses from OP Society. Ops are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 10.04.2015

                               Member            Member                  President

 (P Singla)          (Parampal Kaur)     (A K Mehta)