BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAMANAGARA

Sri Ramachandra M.S.,

President.

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986, against the Opposite parties alleging deficiency of service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows;

The Complainant purchased King Fisher Premium Lager Beer 650ML on 21.02.2021 from the Opposite party and also paid a sum of Rs.180/- for the same as per the receipt issued by the Opposite party. It is a cash bill for having received the above said amount from the Complainant and the receipt is marked as Ex.CW-1 and thereafter, when the Complainant came to know that the MRP for the above said Beer is a sum of Rs.150/-, as such Complainant approached the Opposite party for the refund of extra amount which is collected by the Opposite party. For the request the Opposite party did not respond positively and further refused to refund the excess amount. Aggrieved by the act and attitude of the Opposite party the Complainant preferred the complaint seeking for the relief as prayed in the complaint. Hence, this complaint.

3. Notice to the Opposite party duly served. Inspite of it, the Opposite party remained absent and they were placed exparte in the complaint.
4. The Complainant filed chief examination affidavit in support of his pleading and also filed documents in support of their contention. Heard arguments. The matter is reserved for orders.
5. The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the Complainant prove that the Opposite party has collected excess amount for the Beer and thereby committed deficiency in service on their part and for which he is entitled for the relief sought?
2. What order?

6. The findings on the above points are as under.

Point No.1            :         Partly in the Affirmative

Point No.2            :         As per the final order

REASONS

7. Point No.1: - The Complainant in lieu of evidence has filed chief examination affidavit in support of his pleading and also reiterated the complaint averments. He has also relied on the documents, which supports the contention of complaint. On perusal of the same it is observed as follows;
8. That the Complainant purchased King Fisher Premium Lager Beer 650ML on 21.02.2021 from the Opposite party and also paid a sum of Rs.180/- for the same as per the receipt issued by the Opposite party. It is a cash bill for having received the above said amount from the Complainant and the receipt is marked as Ex.CW-1 and thereafter, when the Complainant came to know that the MRP for the above said Beer is a sum of Rs.150/-, as such Complainant approached the Opposite party for the refund of extra amount which is collected by the Opposite party. For the request the Opposite party did not respond positively and further refused to refund the excess amount. Aggrieved by the act and attitude of the Opposite party the Complainant preferred the complaint seeking for the relief as prayed in the complaint.
9. The Opposite party inspite of the receipt of the notice from the Commission they remained absent and their absence is noted and they were placed exparte.
10. From the perusal of complaint averments and on appreciation of exhibits produced by the Complainant, it is crystal clear that the Complainant has purchased one Beer bottle of King Fisher Premium Lager 650 ML on 21.02.2021 by paying Rs.180/-. This fact, is proved by the Complainant with the cash bill produced herewith and as per the Ex.CW-7 & 8. These exhibits are photos of the Beer bottle which was purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite party shop and the Complainant has also deposited the Beer bottle, which is purchased and used by him for the kind consideration of this Commission. From the observation of photos and the Beer bottle, which is in the custody of the Commission, the MRP of the said item is fixed at Rs.150/- as it is mentioned in the bottle. From these facts, one thing is very clear that inspite of the MRP of Rs.150/- which is fixed by the Company, the Opposite party has charged Rs.180/- for the bottle which is purchased by the Complainant. This act and attitude of the Opposite party shop clearly establishes that the Opposite party has collected an excess Rs.30/- from the Complainant towards the purchase of the said Beer. This fact is proved by the Complainant beyond reasonable doubt. It is also established that by charging excess amount for the purchase of said item, the Opposite party has committed deficiency and also practicing unfair trade practice. The act of the Opposite party amounts to improper service to make unlawful gain. All these facts attract deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party. For which, they are held liable to pay the legitimate claim of Complainant and at the same time, the Opposite party is held liable to pay the claims for his willful and negligent, reckless act. Accordingly, we answered Point No.1 partly affirmative.
11. Point No.2:- In the result, we passed the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the Complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part. 
2. Opposite party is directed to pay the excess amount of Rs.30/- to the Complainant within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which they shall pay a penalty of Rs.25/- per day until the order is complied.
3. The Opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the deficiency and mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of this litigation to the Complainant within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which they shall pay the interest on said amount at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of order till payment is made.    
4. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
5. Opposite party is directed to comply with the order within 60 days from the date of this order failing which the Complainant is also at liberty to file criminal case against the Opposite Party for the offence punishable under section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for imprisonment as well as fine.  
6. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 3^rd December 2021).