Complaint filed on: 15.02.2018

                                                      Disposed on: 31.01.2019

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.224/2018

DATED THIS THE 31^st JANUARY OF 2019

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTH KUMAR, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.Jagadish.T,

Aged about 45 years,

S/o Late Thyagaraj.M.H,

R/at no.44, Varapradha,

3^rd cross, 2^nd stage, Kumaraswamy Layout, Govinayanakanahalli, Bengaluru-78.

By Adv.Sri.K.S.Sreekantha   

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

1. The Store Manager/

Authorized Person,

Star Trent Hyper Market Pvt. ltd., Survey no.21/4, 21/5A,

21/5B, 21/5C, BMP

Khatha no.67/4659/1,

Ground Floor, Marudhar

Avenue, Gottigere Village, Uttarahalli hobli,

Bengaluru South Taluk,

Bengaluru-76.

2. The Managing Director

Star Trent Hyper Market

Pvt. ltd., no.210,

Taj Building, Dr.D.N.Road, Mumbai-400001.

By Advocates

M/s.Kesthur & Kesthur

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

            The Complainant has alleged the deficiency in service against the OP.1 & 2/store in collecting excess amount than the MRP of the “Gold winner Refined Sunflower Oil” and thereby has sought for direction against OPs to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh and legal charges of Rs.25,000/-.    

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that, he being the regular customer of OP.1/Star Trent Hyper Market Pvt. ltd., purchased the items/food items worth Rs.1,974.50 on 17.12.17 and on perusal of the bill, noticed that, sum of Rs.440/- charged at sl.no.10 about five litres of Gold Winner Refined sunflower Oil can instead of MRP of Rs.430/- and requested to reduce the bill. But the OP cashier refused to pay back the amount or to adjust the excess amount, on the ground that, modification or deduction is not possible without permission of his higher authorities and behaved adamantly representing that, as per the computer feeding, he has claimed the amount. The said mistake was crept by due negligent attitude of the OP.1 which resulted in total embarrassment to him before the gathered persons. This attitude of the OP is to gain illegally by cheating similar own customer and inspite of its attempts, no steps were taken by the OP either to repay the amount to him or to rectify in computer system. He sent the notice and both the OPs admitted his transaction and the incident, but denied the alleged carless and negligent attitude. Hence, this complaint is filed.

          3. The OP.1 & 2 filed their common version contending that, after examining the bill, the store cashier politely apologies to the Complainant for the mistake occurred due to inadvertently incorrect billing of the product and immediately offered Rs.10/- to the Complainant. But he rejected the same and threatened to send the legal notice. The store cashier then itself informed the store Manager about the incident to rectify the over charged bill and tried to contact the Complainant to refund extra charged amount. The products are received batch wise from the manufacturers/suppliers. Sometime consisting of all the items with different MRP which differs batch to batch. All the allegations made against the OPs are false. He has not approached the court with clean hands. He is guilty of suppresio veri suggestio falsi. The alleged mental agony, hardship are all false. The Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation. Notice is replied suitably. This issue cannot be generalized to mass public as it is right in personam and not right in rem. The complaint is filed only with an intention to harass the OPs as observed in (2009) 8 SCC 507 and (2015) 1 SCC 429. In the absence of justify the huge compensation under the head “pain, suffering and mental agony” becomes liable to be dismissed.          

          4. The Complainant filed his affidavit evidence relying on Ex-A1 to A4 documents. Official of Op filed his affidavit evidence and not produced any defence documents. Complainant filed written arguments relying on the order of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh State Commission. Arguments were heard.                    

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the complainant establishes the alleged excess MRP of Rs.10/- collected for five litres “Gold winner Refined Sunflower Oil” on 17.12.17 ?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for ?
3. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Negative

2) Negative

3) As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1 & 2: The undisputed facts reveal that, the Complainant is a regular customer, purchased household articles and food items from OP.1 store run by OP.2 on 17.12.17 worth Rs.1,974.50 as per the bill/Ex-A1 and paid the amount through ATM card. Immediately, he observed the tenth item “Gold winner Refined Sunflower Oil” priced for Rs.440/- as against the printed rate of Rs.430/- as shown in the annexed can label.

          8. Later the Complainant got issued legal notice/Ex-A2 dtd.27.12.17 and it was served on both the OPs as per Ex-A3/postal receipt and postal acknowledgement. The OPs sent the reply/Ex-A4 dtd.10.01.18 contending that, despite their apology and offering of extra charged amount, the Complainant denied the offered amount by the cashier and threatened to send the legal notice which made them to feel puzzled by his disregarding attitude despite their efforts to rectify the MRP issue.   

          9. In the relied on decision of Andhra Pradesh State Commission in unnumbered appeal dtd.23.10.17 of the parties Vijay Gopal vs. Inox Multiplex, the Complainant was awarded with compensation of Rs.5,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- with a direction to state government to take immediate necessary steps to crack whip on the locations where higher rates are charged than the MRP rates and take appropriate steps by imposing penalty in connection with about excess billing of water bottles.  

          10. The above referred judgment of the Andhra Pradesh relied on by the Complainant cannot be made applicable, as the OP realizing about the mistake on their part, sought apology and offered the difference amount to the Complainant and it is not the case of the Complainant that, thereafter also, the OP continued to collect excess of Rs.10/- and hence in the result, the rectified mistake of the OP immediately, after bringing to their notice cannot be equated with the intentional business of collecting excess amount.

          11. There is no reason to disbelieve the contention of the OP who purchases the stock in huge loads for sale in the market. Possibilities are there that, though the supplier furnished the required quantum of ordered goods, may be ignoring the small marginal differences to maintain his business relationship. It is not the case of the Complainant that, inspite of his information, OP continued his attitude of charging Rs.10/- in the further transaction also. The Complainant could have furnished such future bills with the same items to show that, he has continued it. In the absence of such evidence, said transaction has to be considered as accidentally occurred without notice. Regarding the readiness to offer the extra charged amount and seeking of apology at the time of the incident, though cannot be proved, it became evident atleast while giving reply and such attitude has to be appreciated to say their act was not intentional and the said mistake was rectified immediately, realizing that, MRP in most of the case changes from batch to batch production. It is not the incident which can be considered as, the incident of cheating by the OP business concern to the extent of Rs.10/- from the Complainant who purchased provisions worth nearly Rs.2,000/-. In the result, the Complainant has filed to establish the dishonest intention of the OP in collecting Rs.10/- additional amount than the printed rate of 5 liter oil tin. Accordingly, both the Consumer Disputes no.1 & 2 are answered in the negative.

12. Consumer Dispute No.3: In view of findings of the Consumer Dispute No.1 & 2, the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

          The CC.No.224/2018 filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 31^st January of 2019).

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Complainant/s:

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Opposite party/s