Punjab

Sangrur

CC/145/2017

Jaswinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shudh - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ramit Pathak

10 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    145

                                                Instituted on:      07.04.2017

                                                Decided on:       10.07.2017

 

 

Jaswinder Singh S/o Gurjit Singh R/o H.No.207, Street No.2, Sunder Basti, Sangrur, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

SHUDH (A unit of G&G Associates), Ground Floor, Fun Square, Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its Manager/Partner/Authorised signatory.

                                                        …Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

For opposite party      :               Shri Rahul Sharma, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Jaswinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that on 18.2.2017 the complainant along with his friends went to the OP to watch a movie at Origin Cinemas, Fun Square, Sangrur and purchased the tickets for the same for the picture show at 8.30 PM.  Further case of the complainant is that before entering the Cinema hall, the complainant purchased a water bottle from the OP, who charged Rs.30/-, whereas its maximum retail price was Rs.20/- and the bottle was bearing batch number A16342, as such, the Op charged an amount of Rs.10/- in excess from the complainant.  Further case of the complainant is that after the completion of the movie, the complainant along with his friends purchased another water bottle from the OP as the water bottles sold by the Origin Cinemas were over charged by them. The bill issued by the Op was for Rs.24/- for one Mineral water bottle, whereas its printing price on the bottle was Rs.18/- only. The complainant immediately objected and requested the OP to refund the amount of Rs.6/-, so charged in excess, but the cashier did not give any satisfactory reply nor refunded the amount.  Nothing happened despite requesting the OP for refund of the excess amount so charged. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund him an amount of Rs.6/- so charged in excess and further to pay him a compensation of Rs.55,000/- on account of deficiency in service and further prayed to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.

 

2.             In written reply filed by the OP, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has concealed the material facts from the Forum and that the complainant has filed a false complaint by concocting a false story.   On merits, it has been admitted that the Op charged Rs.20/- as price of the bottle plus Rs.4/- as tax. The OP use to charge Rs.20/- as water bottle of Kinley from customers, as rate printed on the water bottle. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9 copies of the documents and closed evidence.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has tendered Ex.OP-1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased a mineral water bottle from the OP for Rs.24/-, as is evident from the copy of bill dated 18.02.2017 time 22.57, Ex.C-3 on record. Ex.C-4 is the copy of the photograph of the bottle in question which clearly shows that its price is Rs.18/- only and Ex.C-9 is the original empty bottle of the water which also shows that its price is Rs.18/- only whereas the OP has charged Rs.24/- for the product including taxes, meaning thereby the OP charged Rs.2/- in excess (as the OP has charged Rs.4/- on account VAT and service tax) being the price of the bottle from the complainant.    In the present case, though the learned counsel for the OP has denied that no amount  has been charged in excess, but it is proved from the documents produced on record that the OP has charged Rs.2/- in excess than the printed price as is evident from the product i.e. water bottle Ex.C-9.  Thus, it is beyond any doubt that the OP has charged Rs.2/- in excess from the complainant for the product as mentioned above. In the present case, the OP did not even opt to refund to the complainant, the excess amount of Rs.2/- to the complainant.  Under the circumstances, we find it to be a clear cut case of unfair trade practice  and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  The learned counsel for the complainant has also cited Satyam Cinplexes versus Mark Paul 2006(3) CPJ 12, wherein the OP charged Rs.40/- for a bottle water against the printed price as Rs.12/- only, wherein it has been held by the Commission that hotel, restaurant or Cineplex cannot charge more than price and further it was held to be deficiency in service as OP adopted unfair trade practice  and was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- in common welfare fund and to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant.   Further the learned counsel for the complainant has also cited Zaika Bazar versus Hemant Goel 2007(2) CPJ 96, wherein it was held that it is not open for the Op to charge higher price than MRP and punitive damages of Rs.50,000/- were imposed for depositing the same in favour of Consumer Welfare Fund.  Further in another case namely, D.K.Chopra versus Snack Bar 2014(2) CPC 418 (NC), wherein the OP charged double price than the printed one i.e. printed price was Rs.75/- whereas the Op charged the price of Rs.150/-, thus the Hon’ble National Commission held it to be a case of unfair trade practice and directed the OP to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and further an amount of Rs.50 Lacs was ordered to be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund. We feel that the above citations are fully applicable in the circumstances of the present case.  

 

6.             The learned counsel for the OP has contended vehemently that the OP has charged nothing excess nor there was any intention on the part of the OP in charging any excess amount, nor the complainant ever brought to the notice of the OP about the excess charging, as such, it is stated that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  But, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the OP, more so when, it is proved on record that the OP charged Rs.2/- in excess from the complainant. Further there is no explanation from the side of the OP that why they charged in excess Rs.2/- from the complainant.

 

7.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.2/- and further to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and further to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- in Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained with this Forum.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 10, 2017.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                       

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member

 

 

 

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                        Member