BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.432 of 2015
Date of institution: 27.08.2015
Date of Decision: 24.06.2016
Dr. Charan Kanwal Saini, resident of H.No.2773, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. The Decathlon Sports India Pvt. Ltd., The North Country Mall, NH-21, Mohali through its authorised signatory.
2. The Decathlon Sports India, ‘Declathon Anubhava’ A-22, Bellary Road, Chikkajala Village, Bangalore 562157, Karnataka.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri R.K. Bhatti, counsel for the OPs.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:
(a) refund him Rs.200/- charged in excess.
(b) pay him Rs.35,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony, torture and litigation expenses.
(c) pay him Rs.10,000/- as miscellaneous expenses.
The case of the complainant is that the OPs deal in selling the sports goods. In April, 2015, OP No.1 put on sale sports items. The complainant purchased two units in sale from OP No.1 on 14.04.2015, out of which one was Foam Dumbell for Rs.1199/-. The complainant paid Rs.1298/- for two units and receipt was issued by OP No.1. The price of the dumbbell was mentioned over the box as Rs.1199/-. However, when the complainant opened the box, its price was mentioned as MRP Rs.999/- inclusive of all taxes. Thus, OP No.1 has overcharged and sold the article above MRP. The complainant sent e-mail dated 16.04.2015 to the OPs and informed about the cheating as well as overcharging. The OPs apologized vide their e-mail and demanded time till 4.00 PM to resolve the matter. When nothing heard, the complainant again sent e-mail dated 20.04.2015 but without any response. The complainant sent legal notice dated 09.07.2015 for reimbursement of overcharged amount and for compensation, which was received by the OPs. With these allegations, the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed reply in which they took preliminary objections that the OPs were not aware of printed MRP in the box as it was sealed. OP No.1 is a retail showroom and products are received from the company in sealed packs. Thus, the question does not arise that the OP No.1 would be aware of another price tag in the sealed box. As per the company policy, the price of a particular product is decided by the management of the company to have PAN India effect. So, MRP stickers on most of the items are put lateron. The OPs came to know about MRP sticker within the box on 16.04.2015 when the complainant raised the issue for the first time. The OPs during telephonic conversation apologized for the inconvenience and even offered to refund the entire amount but the complainant was adamant to file the present complaint for motivated reasons. On merits, the e-mail dated 20.04.2015 from the complainant and reply thereto has been admitted. Further after receipt of legal notice dated 09.07.2015 from the complainant, the OPs replied to the complainant through his counsel on 15.07.2015 and sent a cheque bearing No. 337442 dated 14.07.2015 drawn on Hong Kong and Shangai Banking Corporation Ltd., Bangalore for a sum of Rs.300/- only towards differential amount for purchase of two units of foam dumbbell purchased on 14.04.2015 with bill No.29201 at the store of the OPs by the complainant. Since the OPs have admitted their fault and refunded the excess amount charged, no cause of action survives against them and the OPs have, therefore, sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-7.
4. Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of Ms. Neha Sharma, their authorised representative Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through written arguments filed by them.
6. The sale and purchase of two units of foam dumbbell purchased on 14.04.2015 with bill No.29201 at the store of the OPs by the complainant is an admitted fact. Further the charging of an amount of Rs.200/- in excess to the printed MRP on the tag has been admitted by the OPs and when the said fact was brought to the notice of the OPs by the complainant, the OPs vide their e-mail dated 21.04.2015 Ex.OP-3 has admitted the fault and apologized to the complainant for inconvenience he has faced because of the MRP issue and further assured the complainant for redressal of his grievance and take appropriate steps by sending a communication to all stores in the country to check on the particular product so that the customers are charged MRP of the product and not over charged. Further vide their letter dated 15.07.2015 the refund cheque of Rs.300/- has been sent by the OP No.1 to the counsel for the complainant vide Ex.OP-4 with an intimation to OP No.2.
7. The complainant has withheld this very vital information from the Forum whether he has received the cheque dated 14.07.2015 for Rs.300/- sent by the OP No.1 to the counsel of the complainant.
8. Since the OPs have admitted their fault and regretted for inconvenience caused to the complainant on account of charging of Rs.200/- in excess to the MRP of the product in question and has further refunded the excess charged amount, we do not find anything amiss on the part of the OPs as they have made good the loss complainant suffered due to their acts of omission and commission.
9. Therefore, the complaint being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
June 24, 2016.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
