BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 209 of 2016

Date of Institution: 04.05.2016

Date of Decision: 18.07.2016

Ms.Rabia (aged 30 years) daughter of Sh.Sikander lal, resident of Kanwar Public School, Katra Moti Ram, Inside Hathi Gate, Amnritsar (99883-45489)

Complainant

Versus

Regular Toons carrying on its business at Shop No.1, Second Floor, Wing-A, Trillium Mall, Amritsar through its proprietor/ partner/ owner.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Kanar Pahul Singh

             For the Opposite Party: Exparte.

Coram

Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Ms.Rabia has brought the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  on 13.4.2016, the complainant went to the shop of Opposite Party and purchased toys i.e. one cycle, one baby cup and one baby stool from the Opposite Party vide bill No. 660 dated 13.4.2016. The complainant purchased the same for giving the same to baby of her brother on the occasion of his function on 14.4.2016, hence the complainant is consumer qua Opposite Party. The complainant gifted the same to the baby of her brother. Thereafter, when packing of the cycle was opened in front of the relatives and family members, it came to her notice that the MRP of the said cycle was only Rs.76/-, wheeas the Opposite Party has charged the complainant for the same for Rs.220/- i.e. almost triple from original price of the same. The complainant felt very much insulted in front of family members as well as other relatives and friends on the eve of function in the family of her brother. The complainant on the very next day went to the showroom of the Opposite Party and apprised the person who was incharge over there about the said fact and asked to pay back the excess money charged by them for said cycle, but he did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Even at the time of purchase of the said toys, the complainant noticed that the Opposite Party does not mention the name of their customers on bills and asked him to mention, but the same was not done by saying that Opposite Party does not mention the name of any of its customers on the bill and always write cash only. The act of the Opposite Party by charging for the cycle in excess of its i.e. Rs.220/- whereas the MRP of the same is only Rs.76/- and by this way the Opposite Party has charged in excess by three times from the original price of the toy. The Opposite Party thereby indulged in gross unfair trade practice. The act of the Opposite Party by not mentioning the name of the customers on their respective bills also amounts to gross deficiency in service on their part as the Opposite Party is doing the same in wrong apprehension that Opposite Party may avoid its liability in future. The complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment as well as inconvenience and loss of her reputation in front of family members as well as relatives  and friends on the occasion of function due to said act of the Opposite Party. The complainant has sought the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-

a)       To refund the excess amount charged for toy i.e. Rs.144/-

b)      To stop from committing such kind of unfair trade practice to the general public.

c)       To mention the names of customers on their respective bills/ invoice instead of mentioning cash only.

d)      To pay the amount to the tune of Rs.20,000/- as compensation/ damages for mental agony suffered by the complainant for unfair trade practice committed by Opposite Party.

e)       To pay Rs.10,000/- for loss of reputation of the complainant.

f)       To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

g)       Punitive damages may also be imposed as Opposite Party has earned in lacs by way of such unfair trade practice from its customers.

h)      Any other relief, which the complainant found entitled, may be awarded.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, despite due service, Opposite Party did not opt to appear and contest the complaint. As such, Opposite Party was already proceeded against  expaarte.

3.       In her bid, to prove the case, the complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill dated 13.4.2016 Ex.C3, copy of price tag mentioning MRP of the product Ex.C3 and closed the evidence.

4.       We have heard Sh.Kanwar Pahul Singh, Advocate ld.counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record on file.

5.       There is no denying the fact that on 13.4.2016 the complainant purchased one toy cycle for an amount of Rs.220/- from Opposite Party vide cash memo Ex.C2. From the perusal of the document i.e. price tag Ex.C3 it becomes evident that MRP of the cycle in dispute was to the tune of Rs.76/- only. In this way, Opposite Party has overcharged the complainant to the tune of Rs.144/-. The complainant approached the Opposite Party  for refunding the excess amount received by the Opposite Party from the complainant, but to no affect. The evidence adduced by the complainant in support of the allegations made in the complaint has gone unrebutted on record as the Opposite Party suffered exparte despite due service and thereby admitted the contents of the complaint impliedly. From the perusal of the evidence on record, it becomes evidence that the Opposite Party has indulged in gross unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. Opposite Party could not charge the price  of the toy  cycle in dispute in excess to the MRP that was to the tune of Rs.76/- only. Ld.counsel for the complainant has prayed for grant of punitive compensation besides it has also been contended that difference between the MRP as well as price charged  may also be refunded and the Opposite Party may be directed not to indulge in unfair trade practice in future and should display the list of MRP of all the articles to be sold at their business premises. In support of this contention, the complainant has relied upon D.K.Chopra-Petitioner Vs. Snack Bar-Respondent 2014(2) CPJ 493 (NC) wherein it has been held that there has been a large number of incidents of exploitation of ‘consumers’ leading to a constant urge of a panacea. To protect the ‘consumers’ from the excessive prices charged by the Traders, it is provided that the State declared the rates for the purchase and sale of all marketable commodities, in order to protect the ‘consumers’ from arbitrary exploitation by the Traders. It is clear that the respondent has been earned crores of ruppes. It led the customers up the garden parth. The ‘can’ does not mention that the OP can charge ‘double’ of the MRP. It has been further held that MRP itself, includes the commission/ profit, for a ‘shop-keeper’. Under these circumstances, we accept the revision petition, set aside the orders of the fore below and allow the complaint. The Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant, within 90 days, from the receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum, till realization. However, it is not the end of the road. The Opposite Party has exploited the public, prior to, and after the incident. The public was taken for a ride, under the very nose of the Airport Authority. The OP has no right to keep and misappropriate  the public money. It must got back to the public. We, therefore, order that the OP will deposit a sum of Rs.50 lacs, the estimated rough amount, with the Consumer Welfare Fund, by means of a demand draft drawn in favour of Pay and Accounts Officer-Ministry of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi, within 90 days, from the receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization. Therefore, the Register of this Commission shall report. Revision Petition allowed. Further reliance has been placed in Ajay Pal Singh Vs. Baskin Robbins, First Appeal No. 644 of 2013 decided on 20.7.2015 by Hon’ble State Consumer Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh wherein in similar set of facts, the Opposite Party was found to be deficient in providing the service to the complainant  as also of adopting unfair trade practice. Apparently, the Opposite Party is regularly indulging in this practice of sale of items not listed in its menu card at much higher price than the MRP to fleece the innocent customers, who visit its premises. In view of the above findings, the appeal of the appellant/ complainant is partly allowed with a cost of Rs.3000/- and the respondent/ Opposite Party is directed to refund to the complainant Rs.40/- charged in excess than the MRP. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation, for indulging in unfair trade practice, out of which Rs.5,000/- be paid to the complainant and the remaining amount of R.20,000/- be deposited in the Legal Aid Fund of this Commission. This order be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order. Impugned order of the District Forum is set aside.

6.       From the aforesaid discussion, it emerges that Opposite Party has indulged in unfair trade practice by charging Rs.220/- while the MRP of the toy cycle was Rs.76/- only and whereby overcharged Rs.144/- from the complainant which the Opposite Party is under legal obligation to refund the same to the complainant forthwith. So far as compensation regarding unfair trade practice as well as mental agony and harassment to the complainant is concerned, the Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- out of which Rs.5,000/- is to be paid to the complainant while remaining amount of Rs.15,000/- be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Forum against receipt. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order; failing which, awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of passing of order until full and final recovery. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 18.07.2016.

hrg