By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
1. Complaint in short is as follows:-
On 17/01/2022 complainant purchased two pairs of footwears worth Rs. 514/- from opposite party shop and opposite party had provided a bill for the same. One of the footwear that complainant bought costs Rs.175/- and another one which costsRs.339/- .
2. When complainant started using the footwear, it was found that the MRP printed in the footwear was Rs.299/-. On 12/02/2022 complainant approached opposite party to complain about the price difference of Rs.40/- from the MRP. For the footwear, opposite party had collected an amount of Rs.339/- from complainant. It is also seen that opposite party tried to erase the inprint amount in the foot wear. Then complainant asked the opposite party about the price difference seen in the footwear and the bill. Then opposite party said that they are giving this price difference to avoid the tax while importing the articles. Thereafter complainant wanted another pairs of footwear from the shop of opposite party and he was ready to pay for the same. But opposite party did not allow the complainant to take the footwear from his shop. Moreover opposite party tried to insult and made fun of the complainant in front of other customers and opposite party physically harassed the complainant. As per complainant’s case it is the practice of opposite party to avoid tax and they intentionally suppressing the actual MRP tag from the customers and affixed higher price tag in the footwear. It is an unfair trade practice.
3. At first when complainant approached opposite party, he behaved in a positive manner and he assured that he will settle the matter amicably. But thereafter opposite party uttered filthy languages towards complainant. Then opposite party alleged against complainant that complainant is a trickster (scammer). Thereafter opposite party imposed some false allegations against complainant that complainant had threatened him and used filthy language against him. Then opposite party filed a complaint against complainant before the Kottakkal Police Station and due to the economic and political influence of opposite party, Kottakkal Police taken a case against complainant. Opposite party again alleged that complainant threatened them and wanted Rs. 5,00,000/- from them . These defamatory statements affected the complainant mentally and emotionally. There is no rivalry between complainant and opposite party. Complainant does not know the opposite party earlier. That is the first time complainant approached opposite party to purchase two pairs of foot wears. Thereafter opposite party sent a lawyer notice to complainant and they demanded one crore rupees as compensation and complainant replied for the lawyer notice.
4. It is true that opposite party affixed the tag of Rs.339/- in one of the foot wears and complainant accidently came to see the original price printed in the foot wear as Rs.299/-. It is clear unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. The act of opposite party caused mental agony, hardships and suffering to the complainant and family. Hence this complaint.
5. The prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of the unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant and Rs. 25,000/- cost of the proceedings.
6 On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and notice served on them and they appeared before the Commission through their counsel and filed version.
7. In their version, they denied all the allegations levelled by complainant against them except those which are admitted there under. They admitted that complainant had approached them on 17/01/2022 and he bought two pairs of footwears worth Rs.175/- and Rs. 339/-. But the other allegations like the printed MRP. Rs. 299/- were denied by the opposite party. They said that, they did not sell footwear mentioned in the complaint and having printed MRP.299/- to complainant. They again alleged that complainant had purchased ladies footwear from another shop and after one month he came to opposite party shop and alleged false allegation. Opposite party stated that on 17/01/2022 at about 7.00 pm, complainant came to opposite party shop and he enquired about the whole sale purchase, billing and bar-coding to opposite party. Then opposite party answered to complainant that it is solely their domestic matters and not good to discuss that matters with others. Thereafter complainant purchased two pairs of ladies footwears and he paid for the same. After 25 days, on 12/02/2022 evening complainant came to opposite party’s shop and he alleged that the MRP of the foot wear purchased by him on 17/1/2022 was only Rs. 299/-. Opposite party then said to complainant that it is not at all believable, but they said to complainant that they will check the matter to find out the fact. But complainant was not ready for checking or other things. He demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from opposite party. He again stated that if opposite party is not ready to give the amount to him, he will destroy the good will and reputation of opposite party through social media. Thereafter complainant make a terrific situation at opposite party shop before the customers and he used filthy languages against two staffs of the opposite party and he also physically abused another two staffs of opposite party. At the time of making troubles complainant stated that he will take steps to close the opposite party shop at Kottakkal. Then he tried to take another pair of footwear from opposite party’s shop.
8. Thereafter through whatsapp and face book, complainant was continuously insulting and harassing the opposite party. Then opposite party approached Kottakkal Police station and they taken a case against complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. Opposite party contented that complainant bought one footwear from another shop and affixed the barcode in the footwear bought from opposite party’ shop for getting money from opposite party. So the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
9. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A5. Ext.A1 is the price tag of foot wear purchased by complainant from opposite party shop on 17/01/2022 (Original), Ext.A2 is the bill provided by opposite party to complainant while purchasing the foot wears dated 17/01/2022(original) Ext.A3 is the copy of lawyer notice send by opposite party to complainant on 19/02/2022, Ext.A4 is the copy of the lawyer notice send by counsel of complainant to opposite party dated 01/04/2022 and acknowledgment and receipt. Ext. A5 is the Photostat copy of the photograph of the footwear mentioned in the complaint.
10. Heard the complainant and perused the affidavit and documents filed by complainant. The allegations against opposite party is proved by the unchallenged evidence of complainant. There is no contra evidence in this matter. Moreover complainant produced five documents which are very supportive to prove his case. Opposite party did not produce affidavit and relevant documents to prove their case. Hence opposite party set exparte. The Commission finds that there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint. Hence we allow this complaint.
11. We allow this complaint as follows:-
- The opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant on account of unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
- The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only)as cost of the proceedings.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite party is liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
Dated this 28th day of April, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A5
Ext.A1 : Price tag of footwear purchased by complainant from opposite party shop
on 17/01/2022 (Original),
Ext.A2 : The bill provided by opposite party to complainant while purchasing the
footwears dated 17/01/2022 (Original)
Ext A3 : Copy of lawyer notice send by opposite party to complainant on 19/2/2022.
Ext A4 : Copy of the lawyer notice send by counsel of complainant to opposite party
dated 01/04/2022 and acknowledgment and receipt.
Ext.A5: Photostat copy of the photograph of the footwear mentioned in the
complaint.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
