Delhi

North

CC/261/2023

BHUVNESHVER PRASAD NADHERIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMART BAZAR RELIANCE RETAIL LTD - Opp.Party(s)

SUSHIL KUMAR

04 Dec 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.261/2023

In the matter of

Sh. Bhuvneshver Prasad Nadheria, Advocate,

C-105, C.I. Joseph Block,

Tis Hazari Courts,

New Delhi-110054                                        …      Complainant

 

Vs.

Smart Bazar

Reliance Retail Limited

Reliance Smart Bazaar

V3s mall East Center

Laxmi Nagar,

New Delhi-110092                                        …     Opposite Party       

 

04.12.2023

ORDER

 

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. By way of this complaint, the complainant has alleged over pricing of the product by M/s Smart Bazar (OP herein). We have heard the arguments of Shri Sushil Kumar, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant on the last date of hearing. Ld. Advocate, after arguing to a great extent, has sought adjournment in order to take instructions from his client and to file legible copy of the bills. We pointed out that the bills of the purchase so filed with the complaint (at 13 and 14 of the paper book) are not legible. It was stated by Ld. Advocate for the Complainant that the bill so generated by the OP is on a thermal receipt paper, which with passage of time fades. He further stated that the Complainant must have scanned the same and he would take appropriate instructions from his client in this regard.

2. However, on the same date, later on the Complainant, who is also an Advocate by profession, appeared in person and has requested to decide on admissibility of the complaint based on the pleadings and documents already on record. Hence, we reserved the order on admissibility and posted the matter for orders today.

3. As alleged, the Complainant purchased one kurta from the store of OP on 06.05.2023. It is stated that the said kurta was available on discount of 50% on MRP, however on the price tag, two maximum retail prices (MRP) were printed- Rs. 799/- on front side and Rs. 899/- on the reverse side. The Complainant alleges that the OP store billed the said kurta on the higher MRP i.e Rs. 899/- and offered discount on the said amount. The Complainant, upon noticing the two different MRPs at later stage, sent a legal notice to the OP on 25.05.2023 calling upon the OP to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and legal expenses of Rs. 51,000/- Interestingly, the refund of the amount so charged extra was not demanded in the legal notice.

4. At this stage, we also noted that the Complainant has also not sought refund of the extra amount so charged by the OP for the said kurta in the prayer of the complaint so filed. The prayers as claimed by the Complainant in its complaint read as under:

“PRAYER

In the premises, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Forum may graciously be pleased to:

(a) allow the present Original Petition/Complaint; and

(b) Direct the Opposite Partyposite Party to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) and legal expenses incurred for sending legal notice and litigation expenses will be incurred to the tune of Rs.60000/- (Rupees Sixty thousands) along with 18% interest on compensation to Complainant towards damages for the physical and mental torture, harassment and undue hardship caused to the Complainant as a result of such unfair trade practices and deficiencies in service committed by the Opposite Partyposite Party u/s 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; and

(c) Direct the Consumer Affairs' Ministry to issue guidelines to all the stake holders who deals in sales of goods to sell their goods on the original MRP. No sticker for MRP would be allowed. The MRP tags should be originated from the factories only. The seller of the goods should not be allowed to make any change in the MRP.

(d) pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Forum may deem fit and prOpposite Partyer in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

(Copied verbatim with mistakes as in the complaint)

5. Complainant has not sought refund of the extra price so charged for the kurta by the OP, hence such a relief cannot be granted by this Commission. Prayers in the complaint are consequential reliefs if the complaint is proved against the OPs. In view of the fact that the Complainant has not sought refund of the extra price of kurta so charged, consequential prayers cannot be granted. We could have ignored the prayers, but considering the fact that Complainant herein is Advocate by profession from whom, we can expect better drafting, we cannot ignore such lapses in the prayer. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. However, we are considering other arguments of the Complainant before deciding on admissibility of this complaint.

6. In reply to the said legal notice, the OP vide its letter dated 27.0702023 has requested the Complainant to provide the copy of the invoice and also the clear and legible copy of the price tag from both sides. On our enquiry that whether the information so sought by the OP was ever sent, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant, upon instructions from his client stated that the said information was not sent.

7. It is a fact that there are two prices on the price tag. However as the bills so filed by the Complainant are not legible, we are not able to ascertain the fact that on which MRP, the OP has calculated the final price. Further, when the legal notice was sent, the OP replied that in absence of copy of invoice and clear copy of both sides of the price tag, it would be difficult for the OP to reply. The OP has sought further information from the Complainant, which was admittedly not sent by the Complainant. Therefore, in our view this complaint is pre-mature as the Complainant did not supply information to the OP as requested in its letter dated 27.07.2023. Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complaint has been filed pre-maturely.

8. The copy of the bill so filed is also not readable. Hence, we are not able to ascertain the correct facts with the documents on record. Despite the fact that Ld. Advocate for the Complainant sought time to take instructions on the said aspect, the Complainant himself appeared later on and has requested to pass orders on the available records and documents. With the available records and documents, the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice is not established. Hence, on this ground also, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9. We have already recorded in this order that the Complainant has not sought any refund of the extra charged amount and has only sought compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- as present and future litigation expenses with 18% interest on compensation for the physical and mental torture, harassment and undue hardship. The Complainant has not filed any document to show that he has incurred any cost for filing this complaint. He has also not justified his litigation expenses by filing any payment receipts for his payments to any of his lawyers, if any. For physical and mental torture, harassment and undue hardship, there is no specific averment or proof of exact injury or harm inflicted upon the Complainant. The allegation of harm- physical and mental torture, harassment and undue hardship are very vague and not specific. It is a settled law that the Complainant filed under CPA 2019, is meant for saving consumer from being exploited and it is not meant for windfall or making purchaser millionaire overnight. CPA, 2019 is a welfare registration and is not meant to be a tool to wrong gains. The compensation sought by the Complainant is dis-appropriately high and the Complainant has not given any proper justification for the same. In our opinion, prayer for high compensation and cost without proper justification by the Complainant herein is not correct and is to be discouraged. For this, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta vs. Vodafone East Limited [FA 847/2017 decided on 05.10.2018]. However, considering the noble profession, the Complainant is carrying; we are refraining from passing any adverse order on this aspect against the Complainant.

10. For the reasons explained above, we do not find any merit in the case. Hence the complaint is dismissed being devoid of merit. Consequently, accompanying application seeking interim relief is also dismissed.

11. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member