By : Sri.P.K.Sasi, President
The case of the complainant is that on 15.10.2015 he has purchased several items from the opposite party including 1 packet of Major Fryums. The MRP affixed on the product was Rs.18/-. Whereas, the opposite party charged as per invoice Rs.28/- from the complainant. He has not cross checked each and every product with the bill at the counter of the opposite party since it is not practical. The excess charge collected by the opposite party is only came to know by the complainant at his house. He also had an earlier experience with the opposite party that not giving special discounts/offers exhibited near displayed items. The complainant did not made any complaint regarding that incident since it makes unnecessary monetary expense as well as waste of time. On 19.10.2015 the complainant purchased some other items including product in dispute whereas the opposite party has charged only the MRP. According to the complainant, the opposite party made some manipulations in their invoices for making undue gain. Hence this complaint is filed for getting compensation as well as to give direction to the opposite party to stop such activities so as no other customer will have the same experience of the complainant.
2. On receiving complaint, notice was issued. The opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed detailed version. In their version, they admitted the sales as well as the excess amount happened to be collected by them.
3. The opposite party denied all other allegations stated in the complaint. The opposite party submitted in their version that the complainant has filed this complaint with a malafide intention to make unlawful gain. It is submitted by the opposite party that the excess amount collected Rs.20/- with interest Rs.1/- they have returned to the complainant by means of a DD on 03.11.2015. It is further submitted that the mistake of excess billing happened through human error, due to multiple MRPS for the same article, Major Fryums are being installed in the SAP system. It is an unfortunate error for which complainant took advantage to file this complaint making illegal gain of Rs. 25,000/-.
4. In the version opposite party further submitted that they have exhibited posters stating “ Please check the invoice/bill before leaving the Store” to avoid inconvenience by cross check of bills. They further submitted that they have made an enquiry with the billing boy and he has informed that when excess billing of Rs.20/- was noticed on 15.10.2015, he requested the complainant to accept the refund of the excess bill Rs. 20/-. But , the complainant rejected the same and went away from the store with the bill stating that, he would claim more amount through the Consumer Forum. According to the opposite party the complainant filed this complaint by suppressing all these facts.
5. The opposite party further submitted that since the billing boy has returned the amount on the very same day itself and on 03.11.2015 they sent Rs.21/- by means of a DD with a covering letter apologizing for the error caused, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice happened on their part and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. On receiving copy of version the complainant filed a reply, to the version filed by the opposite party. In that reply he categorically denied that it is not happened because of clerical error. It is a planned action resulting in profitable error to the opposite party. He also opposed that they are keeping multiple MRP for the article purchased by the complainant. It is stated by the complainant in his reply that the product Major Fryums purchased by him is marketed by the manufacturer in 200 gms packets, only. He also denied the contention of multiple MRP taken by the opposite parties. He submitted copy of his Form.16 Income Tax Return filed to show that this complaint is not filed for making any unlawful gain. He also strongly denied that the billing boy has returned Rs. 20/- to him when the mistake was found out and he has refused to accept that amount. He also challenged in his reply that what is the need of keeping multiple MRP for the same product having stock with fixed MRP. He also produced the DD send by the opposite party. He further submitted in his reply that, if at all, there was any conversation happened between the billing boy and the complainant, that ought to have been recorded in the C.C.T.V fixed in the shop.
7. Then the case was posted for evidence and the points for consideration was that,
1) Whether, there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice happened on the part of opposite parties ?
2) If so, what cost and relief?
8. From the side of complainant he has appeared before the Forum and field proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint in detail. He also produced 4documents which are marked as Ext.P1 to P4. Ext.P1 is the original invoice dated 15.10.2015; Ext.P2 is the original invoice dated 19.10.2015; Ext.P3 is a letter received from the opposite party dated 3.11.2015 and Ext. P4 is the DD for Rs.21 dated 03.11.2015. The product in dispute is marked as Ext.MO1. Even after several opportunities given from the side of opposite parties neither any counter proof affidavit filed nor any evidence adduced. Hence we heard the complaint in details and taken for order.
9. It is argued by the complainant that this is not a complaint simply filed by the complainant for making any undue gain. He relied the copy of income tax return produced however, it is not marked. It clearly shows that he is having sufficient income and he is also paying income tax. He further argued based on Ext. P3 letter sent by the opposite party that it is mentioned in that letter since unavailability of your address could not sent to you the DD as well as this letter earlier. He strongly argued that he being a card holder of the opposite party they can easily find out his address and details from their system. The card number is mentioned on Ext.P1 and P2. He further argued that when the complaint is filed and the notice is received to avoid a decision from the Forum, they sent DD of Rs.21/- to create a defense for their side.
10 He further submitted that if nobody is reacted, the multinational establishments like opposite party will continue the process of cheating customers. That is the reason for filing this complaint and for appearing before the Forum by wasting his valuable money and time.
11. We have gone through the contents of the affidavit filed and perused the documents submitted by the complainant. Here the complainant could clearly prove his case with all supporting documents. Moreover, the opposite party is also admitted the case of the complainant whereas, they contended that it is happened only because of a clerical error. The burden is upon the opposite party to establish and prove their case. Nothing done by the opposite parties except the version filed. Documents shows that the opposite party has sent the amount only on 03.11.2015 that too after accepting notice from the forum on 02.11.2015. Since there is no contra evidence, we are inclined to accept the proof affidavit filed as well as the arguments submitted by the complainant.
12 Considering all these points, we find that opposite party has committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice towards the complainant. We also find that the opposite party made a false attempt by sending that amount only after receiving notice. It is also not fair for the opposite party to make unfair comments in the version, only for the reason that he has made a complaint before the forum with a genuine reason.
13. In the result we allow this complaint and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant within one month from receiving copy of this order. We also direct the opposite party not to collect any single paise in excess than the MRP of any products from any customers. Failing which the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for that amount till realization .
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of June 2016.
