Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Sh.Gurmukh Singh has brought the instant complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, on the allegations that on 9.6.2016 (wrongly typed as 9.6.2015) he approached Opposite Party No.1 and purchased two bearings for his Splendor Plus Motor Cycle. There was a mention of MRP Rs.86/- on the packing of each bearing by the company having packing part No.961406301010S with packing date as 25.11.2014, but at the time of making the payment of the said purchase on the cash counter, Opposite Party No.1 charged Rs.180/- i.e. Rs.90/- per bearing and issued bill No.M4553 dated 9.6.2016 in this regard. When the complainant asked the official of Opposite Party No.1 about the excess charging, he told that the bill is prepared Online and the complainant has to pay Rs.180/- and this is the rule of the company and further told that they make the payment as per bill and not as per  print rate of the item. The complainant was surprised and felt that in this way, the Opposite Parties i.e. Hero Motorcorp Company  and Speedways Agency, Madan Mohan Malvia Road, Amritsar  are looting its customers openly.  It is averred that in this way Opposite Party No.1 has charged from the complainant in excess and they are also charging in excess from various customers and looting them by charging in excess than the print rate of the items. However, charging in excess than the print rate is crime and illegal.  Vide instant complaint the complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties  not to loot the general public at large and take hard action against such like companies and also direct the Opposite Parties to make the compensation and provide justice so that in future, the general public at large can be saved from the cruel hands of the company.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 ,2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing  joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed he true and material facts from the notice of this Forum; that the complaint is not signed and verified as per law, hence is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was averred that in fact the price of the bearing was enhanced in the month of May, 2015 by the company as the bearing in question were manufactured on 25.11.2014 and the rates were revised in the month of May, 2015, although the prints read therein as mentioned in the complaint, but enhancement letter was also shown to the complainant and the price was charged on the basis of said letter. Hence the complaint is false, frivolous and without any basis and has just been filed to harass the answering Opposite Party. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid, to prove the case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties  tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Varun Sharma, Works Manager Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties.  

5.       We have heard Sh.Gurmukh Singh complainant and ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties and have carefully gone through the record on file.

6.       On the basis of  evidence on record, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties  has vehemently contended that in the invoice /bill Ex.C6, there  is no name of the complainant. Neither it is mentioned in the said bill who had purchased the bearing and it is not mentioned that complainant had purchased the bearings on 9.6.2016  as sticker alleged by him did not specify price of the article i.e. price of the bearing was enhanced by Opposite Party No.2 and price was charged from the complainant as the same is fixed by Opposite Party No.2. Even otherwise, the alleged stickers Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 exhibit the different dates of purchase. The bearing  purchased vide Ex.C4 was manufactured on 24.11.2014 whereas the complainant has alleged that both the bearings were manufactured on 25.11.2014. The other sticker  which has been placed on the file indicate the price of the articles to be  Rs.90/- of both the bearings and bill is also of the same period and the complainant alleged that bearings which have been purchased were having sticker showing value to be Rs.86/- as per bills Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 in the year 2014. As the bearings were purchased in the year 2016vide bills Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 indicating the price to be Rs.90/-, as such, the price  to that effect was changed on account of revision in price by Opposite Party No.2. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties, hence the complaint is false and frivolous and the same may kindly be dismissed.      

7.       However, there is no denying the fact that on 9.6.2016 the complainant visited Opposite Party No.1 and purchased two bearings for his Splendor Plus Motor Cycle vide bill No.M4553 dated 9.6.2016 and paid Rs.180/- i.e. Rs.90/- for each bearing, copy of the bill accounts for Ex.C6. However,  there was a mention of MRP Rs.86/- on the packing of each bearing by the company having packing part No.961406301010S with packing date as 25.11.2014, copies of  proof of documents are placed as Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 on court file. But however,  at the time of making the payment of the said purchase on the cash counter, Opposite Party No.1 charged Rs.180/- i.e. Rs.90/- per bearing and issued invoice/ bill in this regard. On explanation, the official of Opposite Party No.1 told that the bill is prepared Online and the complainant has to pay Rs.180/- and this  being the rule of the company and further told that they make the payment as per bill and not as per  print rate of the item. The complainant made request to the concerned official of Opposite Party No.1, to refund the excess amount charged by them from the complainant against the purchase of two bearing aforementioned, but the Opposite Party No.1 refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant.   The contents of the complainant are however admitted impliedly. 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 could not charge the price  of the bearings in dispute in excess to the MRP that was to the tune of Rs.86/- only. As such, the complainant is entitled to refund  of different  in MRP, from the Opposite Parties.   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.

8.       From the aforesaid discussion, it emerges that Opposite Party has indulged in unfair trade practice by charging Rs.180/- while the MRP of the bearings  was Rs.172/- only (Rs.86/- for each bearing) and whereby overcharged Rs.8/- from the complainant which the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally are 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 is entitled to receive  as much compensation to offset the loss occasioned to him. 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 receive compensation to the tune of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousands only)  and which is awarded accordingly.  Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to  get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 21.10.2016.