Complaint filed on: 03-03-2017
Disposed on: 14-09-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM
OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101
CC.No.23/2017
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
PRESENT
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT
SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
Sri.Vinay.G.H.
S/o.Hanumantharayappa.G.P.
Aged about 31 years,
R/o. Thovinakere at post,
Koratagere taluk,
Tumakuru district
(By Advocate Sri.M.B.Chethan Kumar)
V/s
Opposite party:-
The Store Manager,
Authorized Signatory,
Reliance Trends,
Reliance Retail Ltd,
RRL Trends Tumakuru,
Deviprasad Central,
Opp. BATA Show Room,
BH Road, Tumakuru
(By Advocate Sri.Himanand.D.C)
ORDER
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct to award compensation of Rs.25,000=00 along with compensation for mental agony and other incidental loss at Rs.20,000=00 together with 12% interest from the date of purchase of refrigerator till the date of realization and other incidental charges or to repair the same, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.
The complainant had purchased Shirts, T-Shirts and Short totally 5 items amounting to Rs.1,650=00 from the OP shop. But while issuing the bill, the OP mentioned excess amount of Rs.150=00 and received Rs.1,800=00 instead of Rs.1,650=00 from the complainant. After verifying the bill, the complainant came to know that, he paid excess amount to the OP. In this regard, the complainant visited the OP shop and requested them to refund the excess amount paid, but the OP refused to repay the excess amount and gave evasive reply.
The complainant further submitted that, the OP had intentionally mentioned excess amount in the bill, just to gain much profit. Due to this, the complainant has sustained untold mental agony and loss. Hence, the OP has committed deficiency in service. The complainant has issued a legal notice dated 24-1-2017 to the OP through RPAD and the said notice was duly served on the OP, but the OP did not reply to the said notice nor paid the excess amount to the complainant till today. Hence, the OP has committed an offence under CP Act. Hence, the present complaint is filed.
3. In response to the forum notice, the OP has appeared through his counsel and filed objection contending interalia as under:
The present complaint is false, frivolous, misconceived and baseless. The complainant has not come before the forum with clean hands. The complaint is not maintainable against the OP either in law or on facts and is an abuse of process of court. On this ground alone, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The OP is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as there is no deficiency of service provided by the OP nor is there any allegations to this effect. On this ground alone, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
Without prejudice, the OP submitted that, on 12-1-2017 at about 12.14 p.m. the complainant has purchased 5 items which includes one carry bag from the OP show room vide invoice No.0006. During this purchase transaction, the cashier who was in charge on that day has mistakenly scanned the Bar code no.8907498861613 worth of Rs.399=00 twice without any malice or intention to deceive, this was admitted by the employees and even by the management and the same was due to human error which was not an intentional one.
The OP further submitted that, the same was noticed on the spot and the same was accepted by the employees and the management and they were ready to pay back the difference amount of Rs.399=00 by way of DD, as the amount once credited to the corporate account has to be dispatched through a proper channel. But the complainant has refused to accept the difference amount rather, the complainant demanded Rs.20,000=00 as compensation, which was just an extortion made on the company with an intention to tarnish the name and goodwill of the company.
The OP further submitted that, the OP has received a legal notice from the complainant and the same was forwarded to the head office for reference and they have advised the OP to give difference amount through DD. Hence, on 30-1-2017, the OP has visited advocate office to hand over the DD bearing No.681851 drawn in State Bank of India payable at Tumakuru amounting to Rs.399=00. The OP has refused to accept the said DD rather the OP have demanded to pay Rs.20,000=00. Hence, the OP has chosen to give reply notice by enclosing the DD and the same was delivered on 3-3-2017. The OP further submitted that, the OP has received the said DD and immediately filed false complaint against the OP alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
The OP further submitted that, the complainant has given a different copy of the complaint rather than the one filed before the forum and the same was sent to the OP annexed with the notice. The same is done to mislead the OP to file a wrong version and objections. This act of the complainant amounts to fraud and misleading this forum.
The OP further submitted that, there is a huge difference in the version of the prayer sent to the OP and the prayer versions on court file. The complainant has not sought for the main relief rather he has sought for consequential reliefs. The Forum cannot have a trail for the consequential reliefs alone. The relief was sought against the purchase of refrigerator, the OP is not having any relevancy with this prayer and on this point alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine at inception and other averments made in the complaint are false as denied. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. In the course of enquiry in to the complaint, the complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has filed written arguments and produced documents. The OP has produced documents which were marked as Ex-R1 to R7. We have heard the arguments of both parties and pursued the documents and then posted the cases for orders.
5. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.
1. Whether the complainant has established the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
2. If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?
6. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the negative
Point no.2: As per the final order below.
REASONS
7. On perusal of the pleadings and evidence of both parties, the contention of the complainant is that, he has purchased five items from the OP shop by paying an amount Rs.1,650=00. While issuing, the OP has issued a bill amount of Rs.1,800=00 instead of Rs.1,650=00 and the OP has collected Rs.150=00 extra amount from the complainant.
8. Per-contra, the OP submitted that, the complainant had purchased four items + one hand cover/carry bag. The OP by mistake scanned the barcode No.8907498861613 worth of Rs.399/- twice without any malice and collected Rs.1,800=00 from the complainant and the same was identified the mistake by OP and informed immediately to the complainant about the mistake in the bill as total amount should be Rs.1,401=00 and requested the complainant to take back the excess amount of Rs.399=00, but the complainant has rejected the request of the OP and prayed for Rs.20,000=00 as compensation. Hence, the OP has sent a DD of Rs.399=00 dated 30-1-2017 through speed post on 1-3-2017 to the complainant and the same was received by the complainant on 3-3-2017.
9. On perusal of the bill/receipt produced by the complainant, wherein it is seen that, the item No.8907498861613 for Rs.399=00 was scanned/swapped twice. Hence, we come to conclusion that, the complainant has purchased four items along with one carry bag/hand cover from the OP showroom and not five items, the mistake has done by the OP and the same was rectified by sending DD an amount of Rs.399=00 to the complainant and the complainant has also received DD an amount of Rs.399=00 from the OP before admission of the present complaint. The complainant has produced the above said DD for kind perusal of this forum.
10. Further, the complainant has prayed in the complaint stating that “wherefore the complainant humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to award compensation of Rs.25,000=00 along with compensation for mental agony and other incidental loss at Rs.20,000=00 together with 12% interest from the date of purchase of refrigerator till the date of realization and other incidental charges or to repair the same, in the interest of justice”.
11. On making careful reading of the case of complainant, it is clear that, the complainant has pleaded in the prayer column of the complaint and averments of complaint are totally irrelevant and different. Admittedly, the OP has paid the amount of Rs.399=00 by DD which has been accepted by the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. Further, the complainant has not shown any good ground to award compensation of mental agony. Hence his prayer for compensation is also dismissed. Accordingly, we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No costs.
Further, the OP is directed to reissue DD an amount of Rs.399/- in favour of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Forum on this, the 14th day of September 2017)
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
