BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.283 of 2015
Date of institution: 08.06.2015
Date of Decision: 17.11.2015
Ankit Aggarwal, resident of House No.3324, Sector 50-D, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Reliance Fresh, Reliance Retail Limited, Principal Place of business-7th Floor, Palm Court, 20/4, Sukhrali Chowk, Opposite Sector 14, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122001 through its Managing Director.
2. Reliance Fresh, Reliance Retail Limited, SCO 62-63-64, Phase-7, Mohali Branch through its Branch Manager/Authorised person.
3. Reliance Retail Limited RCP, STTC, Ind. Area, Tanabelapur Road, Ghansoli Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400701.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Sanjiv Pabbi, counsel for the OPs.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following directions to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:
(a) pay him Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for cheating, mental agony, harassment, torture and financial loss.
(b) take necessary steps as per the norms of Indian Govt. for running their business in India.
The case of the complainant is that on 14.04.2015 he purchased Heritage Prayer Sticks (Agarbatti) from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 14.04.2015. The M.R.P. of the item was Rs.60/- but OP No.2 charged Rs.75/- from the complainant. The complainant made a complaint to the cashier regarding overcharging who refused to take any action. The complainant lodged two complaints at the Customer Care Centre vide complaint No.2138507 and 2138539 and also telephonically called the Store Manager of OP No.2 but to no avail. On 15.04.2015 the complainant posted query regarding charging over M.R.P. on the face book page of OP No.2 and OP No.2 in reply stated that ‘when this particular product was billed, a higher MRP might have been picked inadvertently’. The OP No.2 did not pay any heed and failed to explain why the complainant has been cheated. The complainant has also filed complaint in Legal Metrology Department but no action has been taken against the OPs. With these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. The OPs in the written statement have pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complaint is totally false, vague and is not maintainable. On the complaint of the complainant, Legal Metrology Department has also issued Compounding Notice and OPs have compounded the matter by paying compounding fee to the said department. The complainant was informed that the error was erupted due to wrong punching/scanning of Bar Code by the Cashier and the complainant was assured for correction of error which occurred due to oversight and inadvertently. The Legal Metrology Inspector visited the OP No.2 with the complainant and the OPs paid the compounding fee to avoid any further litigation. The complainant has exhausted the legal remedy by filing the complaint before the Legal Metrology Department and second complaint on the same cause of action is not maintainable. On merits, it is pleaded that there is only stray incident about wrong posting regarding charging over MRP. The complainant is interested to encash the stray and isolated incident and did not bother to pay any heed towards the correction action of the cashier. There is no question of fleecing the consumers by overcharging them. Thus, denying any unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to C-3.
4. The OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Jaspreet Singh, Store Manager Ex.OP-1/1.
5. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the written arguments of the parties.
6. The purchase of Agarbati packet by the complainant from the OP No.2 is not disputed. The grievance of the complainant is that against printed MRP of Rs.60/- the packet of Agarbati was sold to the complainant at Rs.75/-, thus the OPs have charged Rs.15/- in excess over the printed MRP as is evident from Ex.C-1 and C- which is unfair trade practice and further not resolving the issued by the OPs is an act of deficiency in service. The charging of excess amount of Rs.15/- is also not disputed. But as per the OPs this was only typographical error which was erupted due to wrong punching/scanning of bar code by the cashier and the complainant was assured for correction of error which occurred due to oversight and inadvertently and the complainant was offered apology then and there only but the complainant chose to file first the complaint before the Legal Metrology Department against the OPs and the said matter was compounded as the OPs have paid the compounding fee. Now the second complaint on the same issue is not maintainable.
7. The overcharging of Rs.15/- on the packet of agarbati Ex.C-1 against printed MRP of Rs.60/- is admitted by the OPs but this is only a stray incident which has occurred due to wrong punching or scanning of bar code. The complainant has tried to built up a case of numerous consumers having the same interest as envisaged under Section 2 (b) (iv) of the Consumer Protection Act by giving a detailed calculation if 20 packets of Agarbati i.e. the product in question are traded in one store of OP No.2 daily, having 1691 stores in India the total sale of Agarbati comes to 33820 packets a day and if all the stores of the Ops over charge Rs.15/- per packet then the consumers like the complainant are fleeced for an estimated amount of Rs.50,730/- daily. The illustration seems to be very alarming but this is an individual complaint, therefore, the effort made by the complainant to bring the whole complaint under the ambit of Section 2(b) (iv) through this illustration is of no help to him.
8. The complainant has successfully proved the overcharging of Rs.15/- for price of Agarbati over and the above the printed MRP of Rs.60/-. Thus, we find considerable force in the plea of the complainant of overcharging of Rs.15/- over and above the MRP and has thus proved the unfair trade practice as defined under Section 2 ( r) (ix) of the Consumer Protection Act. No doubt there is a possibility that the OPs frequently indulge in unfair trade practice as they cannot shell their responsibility to the machine i.e. the computer scanning the item or mechanical error attributable to the computer. The OPs have further indulged into deficiency in service by not resolving the issue when it was brought to their notice so much so having got the offence compounded with the Legal Metrology Department.
9. We appreciate the efforts made by the complainant who has brought this issue before the Forum otherwise who knows how many customers like the complainant can spare time and money to come forward to highlight the unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs.
10. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the complaint of the complainant in respect of charging of price more than that of the MRP is based on sound footing. Accordingly, the complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated for suffering mental, physical harassment and mental agony due to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. In support of our findings we rely upon the decision of District Consumer Forum, Panchkula in Piyush Mittal Vs. Reliance in CC No.128 of 2014 decided on 11.12.2014 wherein the Forum has held OPs liable for unfair trade practice for overcharging than the MRP of the product.
11. The complaint is, therefore, allowed with the following directions to the OPs to jointly and severally to:
(a) to refund Rs.15/- (Rs. Fifteen only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 14.04.2015 till realization.
(b) pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of the above order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay the above awarded amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 08.06.2015 till actual payment. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
November 17, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
