Haryana

Ambala

CC/59/2023

RASHI BHATIA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE RETAIL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

VIKAS,CLERK

17 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	59 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	13.02.2023
Date of decision	:	17.07.2024

Rashi Bhati age about 39 years daughter of late Shri Shyam Sunder Bhatia resident of 31, Raja Park, Ambala Cantt. District Ambala.

……. Complainant

Versus

1. Reliance Retail Limited, Plot No.180/123, Minerva Complex, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt. Through its Manager.
2. Reliance Retail Limited, 3^rd Floor, Court House, Lokmanya Tilak  Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400002 through its Managing Director

 

….…. Opposite Parties

 Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                       Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Udai Singh Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

                   

Order:        Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund the overcharge amount of Rs.16.50 p. 
2. To pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.  
3. To pay Rs.25,000/-, as litigation expenses.OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that complainant visited the store of OP No.1 on 22.01.2023 and bought 18 grocery item for Rs.806.50 vide bill No.194 (Tax invoice No.FRB10523501926) dated 22.01.2023. Out of total purchased items, the complainant bought one Crystal Pointed End Knife whose MRP is Rs.105 (inclusive of all taxes) having bar code number 8901200001120 but OP No.1 unfairly overcharged the complainant more than MRP i.e. Rs.121.50. The complainant was made to pay an amount of Rs.16.50 in excess of the actual MRP for the product in question and OP No.1 duly received the excess amount and thus this amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1. When the complainant learnt about the excess price that charged from her, he contacted the OP No.1 and went to their store and asked reason. Instead of accepting their mistake, the sales persons of OP No.1 threatened the complainant for dire consequences and tossed the bill in air.  The complainant tried her level best to convince the OP No.1 to get right the unfair trade practice that has committed against her but no avail and the complainant left with no other option to file the present complaint.  Hence, the present complaint. 
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability, not come with clean hands, to get undue gains and without any cause of action etc. On merits, it has been stated that OPs denied all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the OPs  by taking plea that grievance of the complainant is for charging of Rs.16.50 extra on the purchase of Crystal Pointed End Knife on 22.01.2023. The complainant further alleged that the OP issued an invoice of Rs.806.50 vide which OP charged amount of Rs.121.50 for Crystal Pointed End Knief instead of Rs.105/- being the MRP of the product. But it was neither intentional nor deliberate or malafide or even intended to illegally gain whatsoever and it was only due to technical error in machine that the mistake occurred. It is relevant to mention here that being all the tractions at the store are being managed through computers with scanning of bar codes thus some mistake in pricing on both side less or high cannot be ruled out. Therefore at each and every counter of each store it is clearly displayed that in case any customer finds that extra money is being charged from the customer then the customer can get refund of extra money charged alongwith Rs.100/- additionally immediately from the store. In the present case, the moment, the complainant pointed out this mistake of pricing to the store, her grievances were immediately redressed and after checking, this mistake was immediately admitted without any hesitation and she was offered the such excess charged amount of Rs.16.50 alongwith Rs.100/- as per company rules and norms but the complainant who was having other intentions in her mind demanded Rs.50,000/- in lieu of that mistake which was neither tenable, legal and thus acceptable under any circumstances. The OPs relied upon various judgments in which it was held that in absence of any allegation of negligence, no question of payment of compensation will arise as has laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Consumer Unity & Trust society, Jaipur Vs. Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Calcutta & another reported in 1995 (2) SCC p 150. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 & C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Tarun Kapoor, Authorized Signatory of OP No.1 as Annexure OPA alongwith documents as Annexure OP-1 to OP-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.       During the course of argument, the counsel for the complainant reiterated the version as narrated in complaint. He further submitted that the complainant bought one Crystal Pointed End Knife whose MRP is Rs.105 (inclusive of all taxes) having bar code number 8901200001120 but OP No.1 unfairly overcharged the complainant more than MRP i.e. Rs.121.50. The complainant was made to pay an amount of Rs.16.50 in excess of the actual MRP for the product in question and OP No.1 duly received the excess amount and thus this amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1. When the complainant learnt about the excess price that charged from her, he contacted the OP No.1 and went to their store and asked reason. Instead of accepting their mistake, the sales persons of OP No.1 threatened the complainant for dire consequences and tossed the bill in air.  The complainant tried her level best to convince the OP No.1 to get right the unfair trade practice that has committed against her but no avail and the complainant left with no other option to file the present complaint, the OPs are deficient in providing service.
7.    Learned counsel for the OP No.1 has reiterated the version as enumerated in the written version. He further argued that the overcharging of Rs.16.50 from the complainant for the price of one Crystal Pointed End Knife was occurred only due to technical error in machine. He further argued that being all the tractions at the store are being managed through computers with scanning of bar codes thus some mistake in pricing on both side less or high cannot be ruled out. Therefore at each and every counter of each store it is clearly displayed that in case any customer finds that extra money is being charged from the customer then the customer can get refund of extra money charged alongwith Rs.100/- additionally immediately from the store. In the present case, the moment, the complainant pointed out this mistake of pricing to the store, her grievances were immediately redressed and after checking, this mistake was immediately admitted without any hesitation and she was offered the such excess charged amount of Rs.16.50 alongwith Rs.100/- as per company rules and norms but she did not accept the said offer. He prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
8.           From the perusal of case file and after hearing of arguments, we find that it is admitted fact that the complainant had paid excess amount of Rs.16.50 of the price of one Crystal Pointed End Knife and the OPs admitted their mistake but on the other hand, the plea of the OPs with regard overcharging of Rs.16.50 from the complainant for the price of one Crystal Pointed End Knife that the mistake was occurred only due to technical error in machine and all the transactions at the store are being managed through computers with scanning of bar codes thus some mistake in charging price occurs whether it may be both sides less or high cannot be ruled out. Therefore at each and every counter of each store it is clearly displayed (Annexure OP 1 to OP 6) that in case any customer finds that extra money is being charged from the customer then the customer can get refund of extra money charged alongwith Rs.100/- additionally immediately from the store. In the present case, the moment, the complainant pointed out this mistake of pricing to the store, her grievances were immediately redressed and after checking, this mistake was immediately admitted without any hesitation and she was offered the such excess charged amount of Rs.16.50 alongwith Rs.100/- as per company rules and norms but complainant instead of accepting the excess charged amount of Rs.16.50 alongwith Rs.100/- opted to file the present complaint.  If the complainant would have accepted the offer of Ops to get refund of Rs.16.50 alongwith Rs.100/- , the litigation comes to end but she failed to do so. The habit of creating litigation for getting undue gain become trend and the courts are duty bound to check out and take care while deciding petty matters of granting compensation and should not encourage such litigation. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation or litigation expenses. However, in the interest of justice, we dispose of this complaint with the direction to the OPs, to refund overcharged amount of Rs.16.50 alongwith Rs.100/- to the complainant within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 Announced:-17.07.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President