West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/107/2018

Biplab Sarkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Renu Shoe, Super Market - Opp.Party(s)

28 Sep 2022

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder.Member.

            The complainant files this case U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986. The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant purchased one pair of shoe by paying Rs. 730 from the OP No. 20/09/2018.

            That thereafter the complainant saw that there was a printed price tag leveled on the shoe with a price sticker of Rs. 295 (Rupees two hundred ninety five) and after seeking that, the complainant rushed to the shop of the OP and requested the OP to take actual price of the same i.e. Rs. 295 instead of Rs. 730 but the OP refused to do the same and also refused to return back the said excess amount of Rs. 435/- (Rupees four hundred thirty five).

            That the OP is cheating its customers by taking excess amount from the legitimate price which is tantamount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the OP and the same is not tenable in law.

            That finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case and praying for relief as to pass an order directing the OP to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation and Rs. 20,000 as harassment cost for mental agony and financial loss.

            This District Commission came into know from the written version on behalf of OP/Hara Nath Dutta, proprietor of Renu Shoe that the complaint is barred by law of estoppels.

            That instant complaint is misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and as such same is liable to be rejected.

            That, the statements made in Pasra-3 of the plaint to the effect that the complainant purchased one pair of shoe on Rs. 730 on 20/09/2018 are all false and false to the knowledge of the complainant and as such all the statements are hereby denied by this answering opposite party.

                                                                            

 

That the statements made in Para.4 of the plaint to the effect that the complainant after purchasing the shoe saw the MRP printed thereon as Rs. 295 are all false to the knowledge of the complainant and as such all the statements are hereby denied by this opposite party.

            That, there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party and as such the instant complaint is liable to be rejected.

            Complainant side submitted evidence in chief. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant and compare with original documents. Written notes on argument is filed by the OP side. Thereafter, Ld. Advocates on behalf of both sides made oral argument in support of their case.

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term Consumer of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

 Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

            Evidently the complainant purchased an Exide Battery with a consideration of Rs. 730 from the OP vide money receipt No. 023 dated 20/09/2018.

            Hence, the compliant is a Consumer U/S 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Point No. 2:

            Pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum as per Sec. 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

i.e. Rs. 20,00,000. The OP/Renu Shoe, Super Market, Suri, Birbhum District i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, this Forum/Commission has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

Point No. 3:

            It appears to us from the documentary evidence of the complainant as well as the said shoe in question which was a printed a price of Rs. 295 (Two hundred ninety five only) but the OP/Renu Shoe sold the shoe with a consideration of Rs. 730 (Seven hundred thirty only) instead of Rs. 295. Complainant requested the OP to return back the said excess amount of Rs. 435 (Four hundred thirty five only) but the OP refused to do the same.

            Ld. Advocate for OP side stated in his written notes on argument (W/N/A).

            That the money receipt which has been produced by the complainant against his alleged purchase of shoe does not bear his name and as such it cannot be said that he purchased any goods from the OP by paying such amount. Beside the document does not bear the identity of purchaser.

 

                                                                                  

            That the OP did not issue any document which has been submitted by the complainant as he did not purchase the impugned goods i.e. shoe from the OP.

            Ld. Advocate for the OP side also orally submits that as per money receipt which was produced as evidence by the complainant, of was not mentioned there any model number of the said shoe in question.

            Ld. Advocate for the complainant orally submits that the OP intentionally avoid to writing the name of the consumer as well as the model number of the said shoe in question. Ld. Advocate for the complainant produce the said shoe in question before this Commission. We seen the said shoe in question and it was printed as SG35 514 NBF 37 MRP Rs. 295

            Ld. Advocate for the complainant also produce a photograph of the said shoe in question which was printed the above model number and MRP as evidence before this Commission.

            This Commission ordered for personal appearance by the OP on the date of further argument but OP did not appear in person on that day.

            This Commission observe that in the money receipt it was not written as Cash Memo/Tax Invoice as well as GST.

It appears to us from the documentary evidence that it is a case of Unfair Trade Practice as per Section 2(r) (1) (ix) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides for  Section 2(r) unfair trade practice means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:

(1) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which,

(ix) materially misleads the public concerning the price at which a product or like products or goods or services, have been or are, ordinarily sold or provided, and, for this purpose, a representation as to price shall be deemed to refer to the price at which the product or goods or services has or have been sold by sellers or provided by suppliers generally in the relevant market unless it is clearly specified to be the price at which the product has been sold or services have been provided by the person by whom or on whose behalf the representation is made;

Hence, under any circumstances, it cannot violet a beneficial legislation of the Government..

In Ashiyana Hotel and Restaurant Vs. Abhimannyu Singh on 5 February, 2021, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, First Appeal No. a/1123/2017 (Arisen out of Order Dated 22/09/2017. Complaint case No. CC/30/2017 of DCDRF, Jalpaiguri)    Where in a case of the Appellant sold a mineral water bottle to the Respondent at a higher price Visa vis MRP. Honble State Commission has been pleased to dismiss the Appeal with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- being payable to the Respondent by the Appellant. The impugned order stands affirmed. Honble MR. Shyamal Gupta, Presiding member.

                                                                        4

 

Considering over all matter into consideration and materials on records and relying upon the ruling, we are constrained to hold that the complainant has been able to prove his case of Unfair Trade Practice as well as deficiency in service by the OP as charging above the MRP is a very serious offense.

 

Point No. 4:

            As in this case, it is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get  relief or compensation as prayed for.

• In ICICI Bank Ltd. Rep. By Its. vs. Mr. Kateka Sudhakar,S/O K.J… on 5 March, 2018 the Honble State Commission, Hyderabad stated in para 15 and 16 as follows:-

16. The Supreme Court held that the compensation to be awarded is to be fair and reasonable.          In Charan Singh vs Healing Touch Hospital and others 2000SAR(Civil) 935 the Apex Court stressed the need of balancing between the compensation awarded recompensing the consumer  and the change it brings in the attitude of the service provider. The Court held While quantifying damages , consumer forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge.”

            Keeping the view of the Honble Apex Court in mind in respect of the manner of the compensation and quantum of compensation as per fact and circumstances of the present case this Commission is of opinion that in the instant case the loss of the complainant would be served in just way in terms of money and the quantum of compensation will be just and proper if the OP is directed to pay Rs. 12,000 to the petitioner or complainant as compensation as against mental agony and harassment to the complainant as well as including imposition of exemplary costs for the change it brings in the attitude of the service provider.

            In this case, we observe that the date of filing of this case was 31/10/2018 and 37 dates given at the time of passing judgement. Complainant appeared before this Commission days after days and it is very painful to him. Hence, Rs. 12,000 (Twelve thousand only) is justified for compensation as against the mental agony and harassment to the complainant. This amount of compensation is not only for mental agony and harassment but also imposition of exemplary cost for the change it brings in the attitude of service provider as not to repeat the same in future.

            Thus, all the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

            Petition of complaint is sufficiently stamped and proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

     

                                                                 

Hence, it is,

            O R D E R E D,

                                        that the instant C.F. Case No. 107/2018 be and same is allowed on contest with costs.

The OP is directed to pay Rs. 12,000(Twelve thousand only) to the complainant/petitioner as compensation as against mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

The entire decree will be complied with by the O.P. members within 45 (Forty five) days from this date of order, in default the complainant is at liberty to put this order in execution in accordance with law.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.