JUDGMENT

            The complainant has filed this complaint u/sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 against the OP alleging unfair trade practice in collecting excess amount of MRP of the purchased product.  Hence prays for seeking relief for unfair trade practice of the compensation of Rs.75,000/- for unfair trade practice; Rs.15,000/- for mental and physical agony and Rs.61/- for excess amount taken and Rs.5,000/- for litigation and miscellaneous expenses.

             Brief averments of the Complaint are;

            2.  That the complainant alleged that on 22-05-2015 had gone to OP Super Bazzar.  He purchased a Nirmal coconut oil bottle and a shuttle bat.  For these items the OP has taken excess amount that MRP.  The selling price of the Nirmal coconut oil bottle is Rs.306/-, whereas the maximum retail price is Rs.290/-.  Selling price of the shuttle bat is Rs.225/-, whereas the maximum retail price is Rs.180/-.

            The complainant further alleged that these two items were purchased by the complainant from the OP shop and a receipt has been given for this and has charged excess amount of Rs.15/- and Rs. 45/-.  In total Rs.61/- was charged excess and sold more than MRP.

            The complainant further alleged that this excess amount was noticed by him after reaching the home.  Then the complainant went to OP shop and told that they have charged excess amount than MRP and asked the OP to give the amount back than MRP.  The OP behaved rudely with the complainant and told that this is the way we sell the goods.  The OP did not returned the money back.  Hence has filed this complaint prays Rs.75,000/- for unfair trade practice; Rs.15,000/- for mental and physical agony and Rs.61/-, the excess amount claimed and Rs.5,000/- for litigation and other miscellaneous expenses along with interest at 12% to the total claim amount as prayed above.

            3.  This Forum after admitting the complaint, the notice was issued to the opponent and the notice was served upon the opponent.  The opponent appeared before the Forum along with their counsel and filed vakalat and written version to the main petition.

            4.  The objections of the opponent are as under;

            Preliminary Objections;

            That the opponent denied the facts of the complainant in toto.  The complainant has filed this complaint only to harassh the OP.  The complainant has no legal authority to file complaint and the same may be dismissed.

            The opponent further stated that the maximum retail price of Nirmal Coconut oil is Rs.290/- and Rs.310/- per liter pack.  In the month of April the price of it was Rs.310/- while making the computerized bill of both the bottles and while selecting the batch details and when both the prices comes on the computerized screen and due to the same bar code 8906002660783 is available on both the bottles and when both the MRP comes on the screen, at the time of selecting it by mistake when it is selected Rs.310/- instead of Rs.290/-.  Then this mistaken has been occurred.  This mistake is not done intentionally.  There is no intention of OP in grabbing more money with the customer.  This incident is occurred by mistake of the clerk but not an intentional one.

            The opponent further submitted that the claim related to this complainant, the complainant has already taken the excess amount of Rs.61/- from the OP on 23-05-2015.  The said fact is not told by the complainant in his complaint and he has hidden it.  So due to this reason, the said complaint must be dismissed.  The opponent further submitted that without any objections, the complainant has taken all the items and has filed this complaint under imaginary ground.

            The opponent further submitted that he has corrected the mistake and in future he has taken measures not to commit this type of incidents.  The complainant has filed false complaint against him and hence prays for the dismissal of the complaint along with compensatory costs.

            5.  On the basis of the above pleadings, the following points have been framed;

POINTS

1.  Whether the complainant proves that there is unfair trade practice in selling more than MRP?

2. Whether the OP proves that Rs.61/- is paid on 23/05/2015?

3. Whether the complainant further proves that he is entitled for the relief sought for?

4. What order?

6.  To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as PW1 and has got marked documents as per Ex.A.1 and     M.O.No. 1 and M.O. No.2 and closed their side of evidence.  The opponent himself examined as DW-1 and got marked documents as     per Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.6 and closed their side of evidence.

7.  Heard the arguments.

8.  Our findings on the above points are as under;

Point No. 1 :  In the Affirmative

           Point No. 2 :   In the Negative

           Point No. 3:   In the Affirmative.

                 Point No. 4 : As per final Order for the following

REASONS

9.  POINT No. 1, 2 and 3:  As these three issues are interconnected each other.  Hence they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts, evidence documents and arguments.

10.  On perusal of the pleadings, evidence coupled with the documents of respective parties on record, there is no dispute between the parties that the complainant has not visited to the shop of the opponent.  It is also admitted that the complainant had purchased the commodities from the OP shop only.  To prove the case of the complainant, the PW1 has reiterated the complaint averments in his examination in chief and in support of his case, he has produced the documents pertains the bill of the Super Market where the complainant had purchased the commodities.  He has further averred that the OP had taken excess amount of Rs.61/- more than MRP.  Ex.A.1 clearly reveals that MRP of Nirmal Coconut oil for 1 Ltr., is Rs.310/- and the amount is 306 and the shuttle cock as MRP is Rs.275/- and amount is Rs.225/-.  Where in both the OP has collected in total Rs.531/-.  On perusal of the Material Object (M.O.) 1 and 2, it is clear that the MRP on 1 Ltr., Nirmal Coconut oil is Rs.290/- (M.O.2) and the shuttle cock MRP on it is as Rs.180/- (M.O.1) respectively.  It is crystal clear that the excess amount of Rs.61/- is paid by the complainant to the OP.  The OP in his chief examination, the excess amount of Rs.61/- is collected by his clerk in confusion.  The clerk of DW1, while preparing the computerized bill of both the bottles and while selecting the batch details and when both the prices comes on the computerized screen and due to the same bar code 8906002660483 is available on both the bottles and when both the MRP comes on the screen, at the time of selecting Rs.290/- it is selected as Rs.310/-.  So this mistake was not an intentional one.  To substantiate the same, the OP has produced the documents of the said batch number and code no., pertaining on the bottles, which is marked as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.6.  Therefore on perusal of Ex.B.2, it is clear that in the month of April – 2015, its MRP is Rs.310/- and the code is same and in the same manner on perusal of Ex.B.4 and Ex.B.5 its MRP is Rs.290/-. 

            It is admitted by OP that due to some confusion in preparing the computerized bill, the error has been committed.  He has further averred that on 23-05-2015, the excess amount of Rs.61/- is paid back to the complainant.  But the complainant has denied the content that he has taken the excess amount of Rs.61/- from the OP in the interrogatories.  To prove the statement that money is given back to the complainant on 23-05-2015, the OP has not produced any other cogent and corroborative evidence except putting suggestion to that they have paid back the excess amount of Rs.61/-  and the said suggestions have been categorically denied by the complainant.  On the perusal of M.O.-1 and M.O.-2, it is crystal clear that price tag of the Super Bazar is pasted on it and the MRP is mentioned as Rs.225/- and Rs.310/- on it.  But the actual MRP on the product is Rs.180/- and Rs.290/-.  Therefore, the version of the DW1 that the clerk has done the mistake and due to confusion it has selected the wrong one in the aforesaid is not justifiable.  Therefore, the contention which has been taken by the OP is vague one and therefore the said defence set up by the OP is not justifiable one. Therefore the OP has failed to prove that he has not taken it as intentionally.  On the contrary as per the oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence the complainant has proved that the excess amount of Rs.61/- was taken by OP and the said fact has been clearly disclosed in Ex.A.1 and M.O.1 and M.O.2.

 11.  Further, the argument advanced by counsel for the complainant that excess amount has been collected.  The complainant has relied upon the citation reported in II (2007) CPJ 96 – Zaika Bazar V/s Hemant Goel ;

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(r) – Unfair Trade Practices – Section 2(1)(g) – Charging higher price than MRP – Three times MRP charges for mineral water bottle served with dinner – Forum allowed complaint – Hence appeal – Contention of the O.P. that desealing of  bottle entitles him to charge any amount, nor acceptable – Practice of charging more than MRP highly unscrupulous and unfair – Sale of water in loose by serving in glasses cannot dilute offence of deficiency in service – Words “Maximum” and “Retail” in MRP are core of price tag and prescribe maximum limit of pricing – Orders of Forum upheld – Punitive damages imposed.

Result : Appeal dismissed.”

12.  After going through the citation, it is well versed that practice of charging more than MRP is highly unscrupulous and unfair sale and also the counsel for the complainant has relied upon another citation passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in II (2014) CPJ 493 (NC) – D.K.Chopra V/s Snack Bar;

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(r), 14(1)(d), 21(b) – ‘Redbull’ energy drink – double amount than MRP charged – deficiency in service – unfair trade practice – District Forum dismissed complaint- State Commission dismissed appeal – Hence revision – To protect the ‘consumer’ from excessive prices charged by Traders, it is provided that state declared rates for purchase and sale of all marketable commodities, in order to protect ‘consumers’ from arbitrary exploitation by traders – respondent has been charging double amount for ‘Redbull’ energy drink – airport authority cannot disturb the MRP rates – a person who purchases ‘Redbull’ energy drink while standing is not obliged to pay the fees which is prescribed for restaurant – OP has no right to keep and misappropriate money – OP is directed to deposit Rs.50,00,000/- with consumer welfare fund.

Result : Revision Petition allowed.”

            The facts and circumstances of the case in hand and facts of the above citations goes hand-in-hand.

 Hence in the light of above observation, the complainant has proves that excess amount was collected by OP.  Hence, in the light observation, we constrained to hold point No. 1 and 3 in affirmative and point No. 2 in Negative.

13.  POINT No. 4 :- Hence, in the result, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER    

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. OP is directed to pay the excess amount of Rs.61/- (Rupees sixty one only) with compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) for unfair trade practice and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  Failing which 9% p.a. interest will be charged from the date of complaint till realization.
3. Send the free copies of this order to both parties.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, typed by her, typescript, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Forum on 11^th day of January 2016.

// ANNEXURE //

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.