Delhi

North East

CC/237/2016

MALIK KHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROYAL SHOES SHOP - Opp.Party(s)

26 Oct 2018

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.237/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Malik Khan S/o Sh. Ali Sher R/o G-2/9, G- Block Mansarovar Park, Shahdara Delhi-110032.	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	M/s Royal Shoes & Anr. (Through its Proprietor) Shop at: 305, Main 100 Ft. Road, Durga Puri. Extn. Shahdara, Delhi-110093.   The Vision Footage (India) Pvt Ltd (Through its Director / Manager) At: 503-504, B-Block NDM-I, Netaji Subhash Place Pitampura, Delhi-110034.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

05.09.2016 26.10.2018 26.10.2018

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a pair of slippers from OP1 showroom which was dealer of the said pair manufactured by OP2 on 09.07.2016 and during negotiation, OP1 had informed the complainant that the price of the said pair was Rs. 999/- but there was an offer of 30% discount thereon and therefore the same was priced at Rs. 700/-. The complainant believing the OP1, purchased the said pair of slippers vide receipt no. 1916 dated 09.07.2016 Rs. 700/- from OP1. However on opening the box of the slippers, the complainant found that the price of the same was written as Rs. 499/- on the slippers for which he questioned OP1 as to why it was selling the same on higher price beyond MRP to which the OP1 replied that it would sell the said pair for Rs. 700/- only and it was upto the complainant to buy it or not. The complainant lodged a complaint with the customer care of OP2 vide complaint no. TO5765 and a written complaint to the OPs dated 21.07.2016 through speed post which was duly received by OP1 but not responded to. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint owing to having being charged price in excess of the mentioned price by OP1 as per its will and wishes causing mental pain and agony, physical harassment and monitory loss owing to indulgence and unfair trade practice and prayed for issuance of directions against the OPs to refund the cost of the slippers i.e. Rs. 700/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of filling of the complaint till realization, payment of Rs. 50,000/- by OPs to the complainant as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.     

Complainant has attached copy of cash memo no. 1916 dated 09.07.2016 for a sum of Rs. 700/-, copy of computer prints out of the subject slippers with original MRP tag of Rs. 499/-, print out of slippers box with price tag of Rs. 999/-, copy of letters by complainant to OPs for redressal of his complaint of having being charged excess amount of MRP for the said slippers alongwith postal receipt and track reports, copy of undated letter by OP2 to the complainant asking for product detail/ article number for checking the pricing of the same.

2. Notice was issued to the OPs on 08.09.2016. OPs entered appearance on 17.10.2016 and filed its written statement on 17.11.2016 in which OPs took the preliminary defence that the complainant himself had selected the subject pair of ‘sandals’ being fully aware that the same was bearing MRP of Rs. 999/- on the outer box and had noticed the price tag of Rs. 499/- on the sandals as a piece of workmanship error and not related to any quality issue and the complainant was offered to take another pair as there was no shortage of the same model in OP1 showroom but the complainant opted to purchase the subject pair out of his own free will and for reason best known to him. OPs further took the plea that the complainant cannot hold the OPs guilty of erroneous price as OP1 had informed him about the correct price as well as the wrongly embedded tag bearing price of Rs. 499/- in that particular pair only and to remove the doubt in the complainant’s mind, the OP1 had shown the contemporary price list released by OP2 where the price of the subject sandal was mentioned as Rs. 999/- and the complainant was informed prior to receiving any money from him to take another pair but the complainant bought the same and suppressed the material fact that he had the right to cancel the sale or buy another pair instead of the said sandal. The OPs further urged that OP2 had offered the complainant to replace the said sandals from OP1 shop or any other location but complainant was demanding unjustified and illegal sum of Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment. Lastly, the OPs submitted that the OP2 was taking calls of the complainant to resolve the frivolous and cosmetic issue raised by the complainant with the reasonable and justified resolution but the complainant was adamant towards his illegal demands which were declined by OP2. OPs have filed the MRP list for the year 2015-2016 for various articles including the disputed sandals bearing Article Number CLT1511 priced at Rs. 999/-
3. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant in which the complainant reiterated his grievance in the complaint and denied summarily the defence taken by OPs and exhibited CW1/1 to CW1/7 the documents filed alongwith the complaint.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit were filed by OP1 and OP2 exhibiting the contemporary price list for the subject sandals.
5. Written arguments were filed by all the parties in reinforcement, reemphasis of their respective grievance/defence.

In written arguments of OPs the OPs argued that the complainant did not raise any issue with respect to the said sandals at the time of its purchase and despite the OPs having asked the complainant on his written complaints for specific information to resolve the issue, the complainant chose not to provide the information and filed the instant complaint instead. The OPs further argued that the complainant had not suffered any loss since the complainant had not placed on record documentary evidence to prove the subject pair of sandal was available in the market at the lower price than paid for by the complainant. The OPs also argued that the complainant has not mentioned any defect in the said sandal and has used the same and has even failed to disclose or quantify the relief claimed for Rs. 50,000/- there against.

During the course of oral arguments, this Forum had directed the complainant to produced the original box of the sandal to tally the article model number as per the OPs MRP List. We have seen the original sandal box having the price tag of Rs. 999/- as well as the subject sandals in which the price tag of Rs. 499/- is duly stitched on the said pair.

The Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of M/s Cargo Tarpaulin Industries Vs Sri Mallikarjun B. Kori (2007) III CPJ 305 (NC) passed on 05.07.2007 in a similar case where the petitioner had charged Rs. 112/- for Duck Back Baby sheet against MRP ofRs. 90/- in its contentions that the MRP was Rs. 124/- but the product of having an old label of Rs. 92/- and after discussion the price was settled at Rs. 112/- had rejected the contention of the petitioner of MRP and upheld the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission which had imposed exemplary compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner and dismissed the Revision Petition.

In the present case, the said pair of sandals were duly stitched with the MRP tag of Rs. 499/- but were ostensibly sold by the OP1 at a discount of 30% on the inflated price of Rs. 999/- i.e. at Rs. 700/- to the complainant which was Rs. 201/- in excess / over and above and in violation of the MRP. The OPs cannot be allowed to take refuge under a lame defence of the said price tag being a “piece of workmanship error” and “wrongly embedded tag” in light of filing MRP list of articles to fleece unsuspecting buyers under the garb of offering fake discount / no discount. This act on the part of OPs is nothing short of indulgence in unfair trade practice and should be curbed.

6. We therefore, allow the present complaint and direct the OPs jointly and severally to refund Rs. 201/- to the complainant charged in excess of the MRP of Rs. 499/- stitched on the said pair of sandals alongwith interest @9% from the date of filing of complaint till realization. We further direct the OPs jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for mental pain and agony inclusive of litigation charges. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which penal interest @9% shall be levied and payable by the OPs jointly and severally on the total awarded sum to the complainant from the date of passing of this order till realization.                    
7.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8.   File be consigned to record room.
9.   Announced on  26.10.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member