Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that on 07.07.2020 he visited the shop of Opposite Party in order to purchase I-Pad and selected I-Pad (7th Generation) and the Opposite Party told its price Rs.31,500/- including all the taxes and also told that the Opposite Party will give discount of Rs.1500/- and will charge Rs.30,000/- including all the taxes. Accordingly, the complainant purchased I-Pad worth Rs.30,000/- vide bill No. 3936 dated 07.07.2020 from the Opposite Party against cash payment. The complainant further alleges that after reaching home, the complainant checked said I-Pad as well as the slip pasted outside the box of the said I-Pad and found that Maximum Retail Price of the said I-Pad is mentioned as Rs.29,900/-. On the same day, the complainant alongwith his son visited the shop of Opposite Party and told that why they have charged Rs.100/- excess more than the maximum retail price, at that time, the Opposite Party told that he use to sell the said I-Pad in Rs.31,500/-, but the complainant told that the MRP of the I-Pad is Rs.29,900/-, after hearing this, the Opposite Party got angry and abused the complainant in the presence of other customers as well as in presence of his son. In this way, the Opposite Party has not only committed Unfair Trade Practice by getting amount more than MRP, but also abused the complainant and insulted him in presence of many other persons/ customers. The complainant is working in Punjab National Bank and has having good reputation and status among his relatives, friends, neighbors and bank customers. Due to the above said Unfair Trade Practice committed by the Opposite Party, the complainant suffered huge mental tension, harassment and loss of reputation. Hence, there is deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. Due to the aforesaid illegal and unwarranted acts, the complainant suffered a lot. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) To direct the Opposite Party to refund the amount of Rs.100/-received by him in excess than the MRP of the I-Pad in question and also to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and deficient service besides Rs.12,000/- as costs of litigation or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission, may deem fit be granted.
Hence, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant for the redressal of her grievances.
2. On notice, Opposite Party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. In fact, on 07.07.2020 the complainant visited the shop of the Opposite Party and purchased I-Pad 7th Generation worth Rs.29,900/- and one I-Pad Protector/ Skin guard worth Rs.300/- totaling to Rs.30,200/-. After bargaining the total price including the protector was settled at Rs.30,000/- and the complainant told that he will pay Rs.30,000/- through Internet Banking to which the Opposite Party agreed and on 08.07.2020, the complainant transferred the said agreed amount in the account of the Opposite Party through Internet Banking System and hence, the Opposite Party has neither committed any Unfair Trade Practice nor charged any excess price of the product more than its MRP and as such, the complainant is not entitled to any relief from this District Consumer Commission and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. In nutshell, on merits, the Opposite Party took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, it is prayed that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
3. In rebuttal to the written statement, the complainant has submitted that the Opposite Party has charged Rs.30,000/- as costs of only I-Pad 7th Generation and the Opposite Party sold the I-Pad on 07.07.2020 to the complainant for Rs.30,000/- and on the next day, the complainant paid Rs.30,000/- to the Opposite Party through NEFT and thereafter in the evening after reaching his home, the complainant checked the said I-Pad on 08.07.2020 and not on 07.07.2020 which was wrongly written in the complaint as 07.07.2020 instead of 08.07.2020 and as such, the complainant is not going to take any benefit by mentioned that he paid cash Rs.30,000/- on 07.07.2020 instead of mentioning that he paid Rs.30,000/- on 08.07.2020 through NEFT and hence, prayed for redressal of his grievances.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.A1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.A2 to Ex.A5 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party also tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sanjum Arora Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that on 07.07.2020 the complainant visited the shop of Opposite Party in order to purchase I-Pad and selected I-Pad (7th Generation) and the Opposite Party told its price Rs.31,500/- including all the taxes and also told that the Opposite Party will give discount of Rs.1500/- and will charge Rs.30,000/- including all the taxes. Accordingly, the complainant purchased I-Pad worth Rs.30,000/- vide bill No. 3936 dated 07.07.2020 from the Opposite Party against cash payment. The complainant further alleges that after reaching home, the complainant checked said I-Pad as well as the slip pasted outside the box of the said I-Pad and found that Maximum Retail Price of the said I-Pad is mentioned as Rs.29,900/-. On the same day, the complainant alongwith his son visited the shop of Opposite Party and told that why they have charged Rs.100/- excess more than the maximum retail price, at that time, the Opposite Party told that he use to sell the said I-Pad in Rs.31,500/-, but the complainant told that the MRP of the I-Pad is Rs.29,900/-, after hearing this, the Opposite Party got angry and abused the complainant in the presence of other customers as well as in presence of his son. In this way, the Opposite Party has not only committed Unfair Trade Practice by getting amount more than MRP, but also abused the complainant and insulted him in presence of many other persons/ customers. The complainant is working in Punjab National Bank and has having good reputation and status among his relatives, friends, neighbors and bank customers. Due to the above said Unfair Trade Practice committed by the Opposite Party, the complainant suffered huge mental tension, harassment and loss of reputation. Further contended that in the complaint, the complainant has inadvertently written the date of checking its price on its box as 07.07.2020 instead of 08.07.2020. Actually, on the next day, the complainant paid Rs.30,000/- to the Opposite Party through NEFT and thereafter in the evening after reaching his home, the complainant checked the said I-Pad on 08.07.2020 and not on 07.07.2020 which was wrongly written in the complaint as 07.07.2020 instead of 08.07.2020 and as such, the complainant is not going to take any benefit by mentioned that he paid cash Rs.30,000/- on 07.07.2020 instead of mentioning that he paid Rs.30,000/- on 08.07.2020 through NEFT and hence, prayed for redressal of his grievances.
8. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant and contended that on 07.07.2020 the complainant visited the shop of the Opposite Party and purchased I-Pad 7th Generation worth Rs.29,900/- and one I-Pad Protector/ Skin guard worth Rs.300/- totaling to Rs.30,200/-. After bargaining the total price including the protector was settled at Rs.30,000/- and the complainant told that he will pay Rs.30,000/- through Internet Banking to which the Opposite Party agreed and on 08.07.2020, the complainant transferred the said agreed amount in the account of the Opposite Party through Internet Banking System and hence, the Opposite Party has neither committed any Unfair Trade Practice nor charged any excess price of the product more than its MRP and as such, the complainant is not entitled to any relief from this District Consumer Commission and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
9. The main plea of the Opposite Party is that on 07.07.2020 the complainant visited the shop of the Opposite Party and purchased I-Pad 7th Generation worth Rs.29,900/- and one I-Pad Protector/ Skin guard worth Rs.300/- totaling to Rs.30,200/-. After bargaining the total price including the protector was settled at Rs.30,000/- and the complainant told that he will pay Rs.30,000/- through Internet Banking to which the Opposite Party agreed and on 08.07.2020, the complainant transferred the said agreed amount in the account of the Opposite Party through Internet Banking System. The perusal of the invoice No. 3936 dated 07.07.2020 issued by the Opposite Party to the complainant Ex.A3 clearly shows that said invoice was issued by the Opposite Party to complainant with regard to I-Pad (7th Generation) IMEI:1 No.WI-FI, IMEI No.2.S/No. DMPCQTBOMF3M Colour Space Gray and there is no mention of any I-Pad Protector/ Skin guard worth Rs.300/- because the Opposite Party has mentioned in their written statement that they have charged Rs.300/- on account of I-Pad protection/Skin Guard. As such, the defence of the Opposite Party with regard to selling the I-Protector/Skin Guard worth Rs.300/- can not be admitted as correct and we fee that to save his skin, the Opposite Party has cooked up a new story and hence, there is definitely Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Party while selling the product more than its MRP.
10. From the perusal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the Opposite Party has indulged in gross unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. Opposite Party can not charge the price of the product in question in excess to the MRP that was to the tune of Rs.100/- only. As such, the complainant is entitled to refund of difference of Rs.100/- in MRP, from the Opposite Party. In support of this contention, we find support from D.K.Chopra-Petitioner Vs. Snack Bar-Respondent 2014(2) CPJ 493 (NC) wherein it has been held that
“there has been a large number of incidents of exploitation of ‘consumers’ leading to a constant urge of a panacea. To protect the ‘consumers’ from the excessive prices charged by the Traders, it is provided that the State declared the rates for the purchase and sale of all marketable commodities, in order to protect the ‘consumers’ from arbitrary exploitation by the Traders. It is clear that the respondent has been earned crores of ruppes. It led the customers up the garden parth. The ‘can’ does not mention that the OP can charge ‘double’ of the MRP. It has been further held that MRP itself, includes the commission/ profit, for a ‘shop-keeper’. Under these circumstances, we accept the revision petition, set aside the orders of the fore below and allow the complaint. The Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant, within 90 days, from the receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum, till realization. However, it is not the end of the road. The Opposite Party has exploited the public, prior to, and after the incident. The public was taken for a ride, under the very nose of the Airport Authority. The OP has no right to keep and misappropriate the public money. It must got back to the public. We, therefore, order that the OP will deposit a sum of Rs.50 lacs, the estimated rough amount, with the Consumer Welfare Fund, by means of a demand draft drawn in favour of Pay and Accounts Officer-Ministry of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi, within 90 days, from the receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization. Therefore, the Register of this Commission shall report. Revision Petition allowed.”
Further reliance has been placed in Ajay Pal Singh Vs. Baskin Robbins, First Appeal No. 644 of 2013 decided on 20.7.2015 by Hon’ble State Consumer Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh wherein in similar set of facts,
“The Opposite Party was found to be deficient in providing the service to the complainant as also of adopting unfair trade practice. Apparently, the Opposite Party is regularly indulging in this practice of sale of items not listed in its menu card at much higher price than the MRP to fleece the innocent customers, who visit its premises. In view of the above findings, the appeal of the appellant/ complainant is partly allowed with a cost of Rs.3000/- and the respondent/ Opposite Party is directed to refund to the complainant Rs.40/- charged in excess than the MRP. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation, for indulging in unfair trade practice, out of which Rs.5,000/- be paid to the complainant and the remaining amount of R.20,000/- be deposited in the Legal Aid Fund of this Commission. This order be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order. Impugned order of the District Forum is set aside.”
11. From the aforesaid discussion, it emerges that Opposite Party has indulged in unfair trade practice by charging the excess amount of Rs.100/- while selling the I-Pad 7th Generation to the complainant to which the Opposite Party is under legal obligation to refund the same to the complainant forthwith. So far as compensation regarding unfair trade practice as well as mental agony and harassment to the complainant is concerned, the complainant has claimed Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation besides Rs.12,000/- as costs of litigation. It is settled principle of law that no exorbitant compensation can be awarded to enrich a party at the cost of the other party. Therefore, the claim of the complainant for grant of hefty amount as compensation, is not tenable. In our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only).
12. In view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we direct the Opposite Party to refund the amount of Rs.100/- which was charged by the Opposite Party from the complainant in excess more than the MRP of the product in question and also to make the lump sum compensation to the Complainant amounting to Rs.5,000/- (five thousands only) on account of mental tension and harassment as well as litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 16.07.2020 till its realisation. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.
13. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:23.02.2022.
