DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.281 of 2016

                                                      Date of institution:  16.05.2016                                                     Date of decision   :  13.06.2018

Harjinder Singh son of Harmail Singh, resident of House No.12-A, Near Water Tank, Sunny Enclave, Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab 140301.

…….Complainant

Vs

Reliance Market, A Division of Reliance Retail Ltd. formerly Reliance Fresh Ltd. Sungumberg Mall (North Country Mall), NH21, Mohali, Kharar Road, Mohali, Punjab 140121.

                                                                    ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

Present:     Complainant in person.

                Shri Sanjeev Pabbi, counsel for the OP.       

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               On 19.12.2015 complainant visited retail outlet of OP for purchase of some grocery items like Rice, Rajmah and Urad Whole. A bag containing 30 kgs. of Dal – Urad Whole was showing MRP of Rs.2,900/-. Complainant approached the cash counter for getting this item billed, but he was informed that he cannot buy the bag at MRP of Rs.2,900/- because he has to purchase the bag of Dal – Urad Whole as loose dal and that too at rice of Rs.145/- per kg.  i.e. for total amount of Rs.4,350/-. Complainant was disclosed about the need of getting same weighed again, to which complainant objected.  Complainant argued with OP that it cannot sell the product in excess of MRP because sale of the product at price more than MRP tantamount to unfair trade practice and even submitted a complaint regarding which written reply was sought. However, OP advised complainant to write his concern in the feed book register. Complainant was disclosed that he will receive a call within 24 hours. OP removed the original sticker showing MRP of Rs.2,900/- and thereafter attached another sticker with price of Rs.4,352/-. Photostat copy of the revised sticker alongwith cash memo are produced with the complaint. Reply within 24 hours not received by complainant from OP and as such he sent e-mail, but response of the same even not received. This complaint filed for seeking refund of excess charged amount of Rs.1,452.90 N.P. with interest @ 18%. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.15,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.1,500/- claimed.

2.             In reply submitted by OP, it is pleaded inter alia as if false and frivolous complaint filed for getting undue gain; complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands because he has produced the image of some other product, which was sold earlier, but not on the date of purchase by complainant. OP is seller of various products/items at very competitive prices through its stores. OP is a trusted organization holding exemplary respect amongst the customers due to quality of its services. Customers visiting the stores are apprised of the products on display alongwith chargeable price. Only after that customers make their choices suiting to their requirements and budget. From perusal of documents attached with the complaint, it is made out that image of the product, which the complainant has enclosed is of “loose urad whole dal” and the package of said product was mentioning the date as 12.10.2016. However, the product in question was purchased by complainant on 19.12.2015. The purchased product is FMCG i.e. Fast Moving Consumer Goods item. It is difficult to store such an item for a long period and as such image of the product attached with the complaint was of some earlier sold product. When complainant approached OP with the allegations, then he was immediately explained about the actual price of the product. Even information was given to complainant that the product is sold loose only. That statement was put in writing, when complainant submitted written complaint. Entry in the complaint register kept in the Store of the OP was incorporated. So, all necessary assistance in redressing grievance of the complainant was provided.  Admittedly complainant visited Store of OP, but it is claimed that price of the Dal – Urad Whole was Rs.4,350/- for 30 kg. and not Rs.2,900/- as alleged by complainant. When complainant again approached OP, then he was informed that nothing wrong has been done because the billing has been done as per price of the product. So by denying allegation of deficiency in service and other allegations qua sale of product on price higher than MRP, prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and then closed evidence. On the other hand counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of  Shri Sarvjit Khatal, Store Manager and then closed evidence.

4.             Written arguments submitted in this case by complainant as well as by OP. Oral arguments also heard  and records gone through.

5.             Complainant has produced on record tag of loose urad dal whole 30kg. weight for showing that MRP of the product inclusive of all taxes was Rs.2,900/-. However, he has further produced on record tag Ex.C-3 for claiming that for sale of 30 kg. pack having MRP of Rs.2,900/- tag was changed in his presence for showing as if the MRP is Rs.4,352/-. That submission of complainant has force because he lodged complaint in writing Ex.C-2 mentioning these facts itself in the complaint. After going through price tag Ex.C-1, it is made out that pack of 30 kg. was packed on 12.10.2016 and use of the same should take place 7 months from the date of packaging.  If the date of use of this packed material mentioned as 7 months from the date of packing, then this means that MRP mentioned in Ex.C-1 as Rs.2,900/- was the actual maximum retail price chargeable by the OP on this pack.

6.             Date 12.10.2015 as the package date mentioned on Ex.C-1 is the actual date because undisputedly complainant visited OP on 19.12.2015. However, date 12.10.2016 alleged to be readable on Ex.C-1 is mentioned either due to mistake or the same seems to be on account of photographic colouring, due to which word 2015 seems to be readable as 2016. So certainly submissions advanced by complainant has force that in fact this tag Ex.C-1 was having date of packaging as 12.10.2015.

7.             If the date of packaging of loose urda whole dal of 30 kg. pack as mentioned in Ex.C-1 is 12.10.2015, then this means that complainant aspired to purchase it on 19.12.2015 i.e. within 2 months and 7 days of packaging of the same. As the best use should have been before 7 months of packaging as per inscription on Ex.C-1 and as such it is obvious that urad dal packed on 12.10.2015 was having prescribed shelf life upto 12.05.2016. In view of this, the use of packed material for getting best results by complainant should have been by 11.05.2016. It is on account of this that the price of Rs.2,900/- mentioned as MRP on Ex.C-1 alone needs to have been paid by complainant for purchase of this packed material of 30 kg. However, sticker of MRP Ex.C-3 was changed immediately on pointing out by complainant that he is to purchase this packet having MRP of Rs.2,900/-. So certainly submissions advanced by complainant has force that change of MRP sticker for mentioning higher price was done by officials of OP for earning huge profits.

8.             Undisputedly OP in written reply has claimed that complainant raised protest regarding printed MRP at the time of purchase and entry in that respect was incorporated in the register kept in the Store of OP. That fact is specifically admitted in Para No.6 under heading preliminary objections of the written statement filed by OP. So contents of this para No.6 of reply corroborate claim of complainant that he submitted written complaint Ex.C-2 with the OP. If such a complaint was submitted in writing by complainant, then OP must have satisfied the complainant by tendering explanation through corresponding entry in the complaint register itself. No copy of entry of complaint register is produced by OP, despite the fact that same bound to be available with OP. So best evidence available with OP in this respect, has been withheld deliberately. Only that party will withheld the best evidence available, who is to suppress the material facts. Complainant claims that despite lodging of protest through written complaint Ex.C-2, OP did not respond even after waiting for 24 hours and that is why he sent e-mail Ex.C-5. Even reply to this e-mail not given by OP and as such it is obvious that now OP has concocted a story regarding offering of due explanation regarding MRP. If at all  MRP of the product in question would have been Rs. 4,352/- actually, then there was no need for OP to remove the original of Ex.C-1 from the pack for pasting tag Ex.C-3 specifying the higher price of Rs.4,352/- than that of the original MRP of Rs.2,900/-. However, that was done on the spot and as such inference is obvious that actually Rs.1,452.90 N.P. was charged in excess from the complainant by issue of invoice Ex.C-4, in which price of the loose urad whole dal mentioned as Rs.4,352.90 N.P. despite the fact that MRP of the same was Rs.2,900/- at the time of purchase as mentioned in Ex.C-1.

9.             As the package of 30 kg. of loose urad whole dal was displayed in the shelves of OP store and as such the same was offered for sale virtually to customers visiting the store on MRP printed thereon. Had intention of OP been not to sell the said loose urad dal pack of 30 kg. at MRP of Rs. 2,900/- inclusive of all taxes (as mentioned in Ex.C-1), then the said pack would have been kept in the godown, but not on the shelves of the store of OP. However, that package mentioning  MRP inclusive of all taxes as Rs.2,900/- was kept in the shelves of store of the OP for sale and as such virtually invitation of offer was given to the visiting customers to purchase the pack at the mentioned MRP of Rs.2,900/-. In such circumstances refusal by OP to sell the package of 30 kg on MRP itself amounts to unfair trade practice because it pretended to sell the urad dal in loose form and not in packed form. When tag Ex.C-1 itself mentions that urad dal package of 30 kg. should be used within 7 months from packaging, then this means that visiting customers were apprised not only regarding MRP, but even regarding the date by which use of the whole sale package should take place.  When such notice was given to visiting customers through tag Ex.C-1, then denial of sale of package itself is unfair trade practice just for earning huge profits of Rs.1452.90 N.P. as referred above.

10.            Counsel for OP takes us through Para No.10 of affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 of complainant as well as of the complaint for arguing that complainant himself claimed as if OP removed the original sticker showing MRP of Rs.2,900/- for replacing the same with another sticker showing price of Rs.4,352/- and as such inference is obvious that virtually price on the tag was not properly depicted. That submission of counsel for OP again has no force because after going through written arguments submitted by OP, it is made out as if OP wants to project that tag Ex.C-1 as the image of some other product which was available earlier, but not on the date of purchase by complainant. It is for OP to establish as to which other product the image of Ex.C-1 pertains, but it failed to mention so and as such it is obvious that story regarding image Ex.C-1 of some other product is put forth by OP only for covering its act of adopting unfair trade practice. Had Ex.C-1 been image of some other product, then mention of the same would not have been made regarding same being of whole sale pack of loose urad whole dal of 30 kg.  However, these facts are mentioned in Ex.C-1 and the product purchased by complainant through invoice Ex.C-4 is also of loose urad whole dal of 30.020 kg. and as such it is obvious that virtually the description of product given in Ex.C-1 is the same as is the description of the product purchased by complainant through invoice Ex.C-4 and reflection of which also made in Ex.C-3. So image Ex.C-1 is not of any other product, but of the product purchased by complainant.

11.            It is vehemently contended by counsel for OP that complainant should have disclosed the price of urad dal prevailing in the market at the time of purchase by him on 19.12.2015 and only then he would have been able to establish that actually the price of  urad whole dal was Rs.2,900/- for 30 kg. on the date of purchase. That submission of counsel for OP has no force because OP’s store sells the products like dal urad and other material in open market and as such it must have been maintaining records showing the prices of products per day or per week. That record could have been produced by OP for establishing that price of the product sold to complainant on the date of sale was Rs.4,350/- for 30 kg. pack and not Rs.2,900/-. Such material is not produced by OP for the reasons best known to it, despite availability of same with it and as such it is obvious that OP virtually for covering up its deficiency taking up this plea, which is far away from reality.  It is well settled that technicalities must not stand in the way of administration of justice to consumers. In view of above circumstances, the only reasonable and believable inference that can be drawn is that actually the product purchased by complainant was having MRP of Rs.2,900/-, but same was sold to complainant for amount of Rs.4,352.90 N.P. by charging Rs.1,452.90 N.P. in excess of MRP. That act of OP certainly is an act of adopting unfair trade practice resulting in mental agony and harassment to complainant. Adoption of such practice by a retail store through which numerous transactions took place per day bound to cause loss to visiting customers and as such for checking this wholesome unfair trade practice, ends of justice warrants that OP should be made to shell out something for the welfare of customers by depositing an amount of Rs.5,000/- in District Consumer Welfare Fund. As complainant had to pay Rs.1,452.90 N.P. in excess of actual MRP of the product on the date of purchase and as such for the financial loss suffered by complainant, it is appropriate to allow interest @ 6% per annum on the excess charged amount from the date of purchase namely 19.12.2015 till payment. As complainant had to struggle for pursuing this case for long time and as such he had to appear time and again, so even if the litigation cost of Rs.1,500/- demanded, but despite that same should be on somewhat higher side. So litigation expenses of Rs.2,500/- allowed in addition to amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony.  Complainant certainly suffered somewhat greater mental agony and harassment in this case because despite lodging of complaint in writing by him with OP, response was not received by him, as discussed above. So compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.5,000/- atleast should be allowed.  

12.            As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed with direction to OP to refund the excess received amount of Rs.1,452.90 N.P. with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of purchase namely 19.12.2015 till payment. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,500/-  more allowed in favour of complainant and against the OP. OP is also directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- more in the District Consumer Welfare Fund. Payment of these amounts of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order.  Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

June 13, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

                                                       (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member