DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1401 of 2018
Date of institution: 27.12.2018 Date of decision : 16.10.2019
Jaswinder Singh son of Late Shri Charanjit Singh, resident of House No.513, Phase-6, Mohali.
…….Complainant
Versus
Reliance Retail Limited, Bestech Square Mall, Plot No.1, Industrial Focal Point, Phase-IX, SAS Nagar Mohali through its Manager/Incharge/M.D./Director.
……..Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri Kulwinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Sanjeev Pabbi, counsel for the OP.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant after visiting outlet of OP at Mohali on 01.12.2018 purchased Super Max SII blades and other items by paying Rs.294.05 N.P.. An amount of Rs.57/- charged for Super Max SII blades, despite the fact that MRP of the same was Rs.54/-. When complainant objected, then he was called upon to go out of the shop and purchase the product from some other shop. Practice of charging Rs.3/- in excess of MRP is unfair trade practice and that is why this complaint for seeking refund of extra charged amount alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by OP, it is pleaded inter alia as if no cause of action has accrued to the complainant, more so when the complaint is false and frivolous. It is also claimed that OP is retailer of various products manufactured by reputed manufacturers and it has earned reputation amongst customers for sale of products at competitive prices. Admittedly complainant purchased the product from OP, but it is claimed that during course of billing of the product alongwith other products, due to certain barcode error, the billing computer erred in capturing the value of the product, as a result of which excess amount erroneously reflected in the bill. That excess amount was agreed to be deducted from the bill amount. OP was ready to refund that amount, but complainant refused to accept the amount. This complaint alleged to be filed for getting undue gain without any basis. Question of demand of compensation or damages to arise only, if there is loss or injury due to negligence of OP. There is no loss or injury at all suffered by complainant and as such question of demand of compensation does not arise, more so when complaint has been filed with ulterior motive for unjust enrichment. Other averments of the complaint denied by claiming that no deficiency in service on part of OP is there and nor it adopted any unfair trade practice.
3. As per latest instructions received from Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab parties to produce self attested affidavits and self attested documents and those have been produced and taken in consideration.
4. Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.
5. From perusal of pleadings of the parties and the submitted affidavits, certainly it is made out that an amount of Rs.3/- charged in excess of MRP of the product purchased by complainant. That fact even borne from perusal of invoice Ex.C-1 and of the tag Ex.C-2 because in tag Ex.C-2 it is mentioned as if MRP of the product in question is Rs.54/- inclusive of all taxes, but through invoice Ex.C-1 amount of Rs.57/- is charged. So certainly an amount of Rs.3/- is charged in excess of MRP of the product in question purchased by complainant from OP. That charging of excess amount is unfair trade practice even as per law laid down by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as M/s Aero Club (Wood Land) through its Manager Vs. Rakesh Sharma bearing Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016 decided on 04.01.2017 as well as in case bearing First Appeal No.136 of 2017 titled as M/s Aero Club Vs. Ravinder Singh Dhanju decided on 23.05.2017 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh. Ratio of both these cases fully applicable to the facts of the present case.
6. Counsel for OP vehemently contends that error of barcode occurred due to which value captured by computer was shown as excess and as such inference of negligence on part of OP cannot be drawn, more so when employees of OP, who issued the invoice, not to get any benefit by charging extra amount. Story regarding error in barcode is not believable because if the extra amount was charged regarding which refund agreed to be made at the time of issue of invoice, then mention of same must have been made by concerned employee on the invoice itself with endorsement of less charging of Rs.3/- in view of error in bar code. No such endorsement is there on the invoice and as such certainly contention of counsel for complainant has force that complainant had to pay excess amount of Rs.3/- because of behavior of employees of OP in not acceding to request of complainant. Command of barcode remains in the hands of OP or its employees and as such it was for them to rectify the error at earliest, but same has not been done and as such certainly OP acted in negligent manner in charging Rs.3/- in excess of MRP of the product in question.
7. After perusal of invoice Ex.C-1 of this case, it is made out that this invoice issued on 01.12.2018 at 18:11:54 hours at by mentioning price of product as Rs.57/-, but perusal of another invoice of case bearing Consumer Complaint No.1307 of 2018 titled as Ramandeep Kaur vs. Reliance Retail Ltd. (decided on 09.10.2019) shows as if MRP of Rs.57/- charged of the same product having MRP of Rs.54/- from that complainant Ramandeep Kaur also through invoice issued on 04.11.2018 at 12:56:12 hours. This means that the error of barcode not rectified even after 26 days, the time that elapsed between issue of invoice of CC No.1307 referred above and invoice of this case. Being so, story regarding offer of deduction of excess charged amount put forth by OP is not at all believable. In view of this false plea taken in the written reply, and in view of infringement of right of complainant to pay in excess of MRP, certainly complainant suffered somewhat mental agony and harassment, due to which she is entitled to compensation and litigation expenses, but of reasonable amount. Besides, complainant entitled for refund of extra paid amount with reasonable amount of interest.
8. It is also contended by counsel for OP that no damage or loss sustained by complainant and as such he is not entitled to claim any compensation or damages in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Consumer Unity & Trust Society Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director 1995 SCC (2) 150. However, after going through ratio of this case, it is made out that deficiency in service on part of bank was found because of resorting to strike by employees, who physically prevented the bank from functioning. This is not the position in the case before us because there are no compelling circumstances on part of OP in charging excess amount than the actual chargeable one. So benefit from ratio of this case cannot be availed by counsel for OP.
9. No other point argued.
10. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint allowed with direction to OP to refund excess charged amount of Rs.3/- with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 01.12.2018 till payment. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.2,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP. Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
October 16, 2019.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
