Haryana

Karnal

394/2013

Shiv Kumar Sharma S/o Vir Mani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Retail Manager Easy Day - Opp.Party(s)

Yash Pal Sharma

23 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.394 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt. 17.09.2013

                                                               Date of decision: 12.08.2015

 

Shiv Kumar Sharma son of Shri Vir Mani, resident of Gali No.7, near Vijeta School, back side Sector 6, Green Belt, Karan Vihar, Karnal.

                                                             ……….Complainant.

 

                             Versus

 

The Retail Manager, Easy Day, Bharti Retail Ltd.SCO No.96-97-98, Sector – 07, U.E.Karnal.

                                                           ……… Opposite Party.

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt. Shashi Sharma ………Member

                   Sh.Anil Sharma……….Member.

 

Present:        Sh.Yasshpal Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.R.K.Kanojia Advocate for the OP.

ORDER:

‘

                        The brief facts giving rise to the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection  Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as the Act)  are that the complainant has been  regularly purchasing domestic foods from the retail shop namely  Easy Day  of the Opposite Party ( in short OP) for the last two years and making payment of the goods by cash  as well as through debit card.  On 20.1.2013 he purchased some domestic articles from retail shop  Easy Day of the OP  to the tune of Rs.1243/- and a bill/invoice in his favour was issued by the OP.   When  he inspected the  aforesaid invoice/bill, he found that OP had charged extra amount from the printed maximum retail price on the product  Lux  Splash ( A pack of  four soaps) The maximum retail price on this product was printed as Rs.70/-, but OP charged Rs.79/- from him. When he  requested the OP to compensate him for such unfair trade practice,  OP prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to pay even a single paisa  and  misbehaved with him.

 

2.                Notice  of the complaint was issued to the OP,  who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have raised that complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2(d) of the Act; that  complainant has no locus standi and cause of action and that the complaint is not maintainable.

 

                   On merits, it has been denied that the complainant purchased domestic articles from the OP  for an amount of Rs.1243/- and OP issued   invoice/bill in that regard.  It has also been denied that am amount of Rs.9/- was charged in excess from the printed maximum  retail price of the product, as alleged. It has been alleged that the complainant  is a mischievous person and even if he had purchased alleged articles from the OP, he could  show the alleged bill  to the OP immediately after coming to know regarding excess charges.  There could be a mistake of computerized bill system, which could be corrected at the same time and the amount of Rs.9/-  could be given to the complainant then and there. The  other allegations made in the complaint have been  specifically denied.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, he filed his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3.,

 

4.                On the other hand in evidence of the OP, affidavit of Sh.Amarjeet, Office Assistant Ex.O1 has only  been filed.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                The dispute between the parties is regarding over charging an amount of Rs.9/- by the OP in respect of the pack of Splah  Lux  soap.  As per case of the complainant maximum retail price on the said back was printed Rs.70/-, but the OP charged an amount of Rs.79/-.

7.                       The copy of the wrapper of the pack shows that pack contained four units of soap and maximum retail price of the said pack inclusive of all  taxes was mentioned as Rs.70/-. Initially, maximum retail price was printed as Rs.88/- but it was  printed in bold letters  “ save Rs.18” and by cutting the amount of Rs.88/- retail price was mentioned as Rs.70/- Thus, it is emphatically clear that maximum retail price of the pack was Rs.70/- only. The copy of the invoice Bill Ex.C3 shows that OP issued the said bill regarding purchase of various articles for total amount of Rs.1243.17. The price of lux  FRSH bearing item No.103041568 was mentioned as Rs.79/-. Thus, it is quite evident  that OP had charged  the  price in excess of the  maximum retail price printed on the package containing the Lux soap, which certainly amounted the unfair trade practice. As per allegations of the complainant, the OP even refused to return the excess amount despite repeated requests of the complainant, which could certainly cause  mental harassment and agony to the complainant.

 

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.9/- ( i.e. excess amount) to the complainant. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- for the harassment and agony caused to him together with a sum of Rs.2200/- towards legal fee and litigation expenses. The OP shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance

 

Announced
dated:12.08.2015                                                                             

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

 (Smt.Shashi Sharma) (Anil Sharma)

          Member.           Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:        Sh.Yasshpal Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.R.K.Kanojia Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 12.8.2015.

 

Announced
dated:05.08.2015                                                                            

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

 (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

       Member.

 

 

Present:        Sh.Yasshpal Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.R.K.Kanojia Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments  heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:12.08.2015                                                                             

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

 (Smt.Shashi Sharma) (Anil Sharma)

          Member.           Member.