Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/651/2017

Mulkh Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tinbro Bharat Medical Stores - Opp.Party(s)

Jagdish Marwah Adv.

24 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	651 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	28.08.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	24.04.2018

 

 

 

 

Mulkh Raj s/o Late Sh.Manak Chand, R/o H.No.599, Sector 18-B, Chandigarh.  

             …..Complainant

Versus

Tinbro Bharat Medical Store, SCF No.23, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/Partner Sh.Parminder Singh

   ….. Opposite Party 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN              PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                               

 

 

Argued by :-

Sh.Manit Sharma, Adv. proxy for Sh.Jagdish Marwah, Adv. for the complainant.

Sh.Parteek, Adv. proxy for Sh.Vishawas Arora, Adv. for Opposite Party

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant’s wife namely Mrs.Sudesh took treatment for her breast cancer from Max Healthcare Hospital. It is averred that in the year 2016, the complainant purchased one Pair of Sigvaris Traditional M Long Arm Sleeve Medium 503 Batch No.33535 from Opposite Party wherein the Opposite Party has affixed its own sticker (Ann.C-4) about the price. Thereafter, the complainant purchased Only One Piece of Arm Sleeve from Opposite Party on 8.7.2017 of Sigvaris Brand and Opposite Party claimed Rs.4500/- towards the cost of one piece of Arm Sleeve and the complainant pointed out to the Opposite Party that on the box, the article number has been mentioned as 77356 whereas the slip affixed by it is depicting the Batch No.77366 and the price displayed on the slip affixed by the Opposite Party is Rs.2800/- only.  It is stated that the complainant asked the Opposite Party about the overcharging being done because the Sigvaris Medical Company has displayed the MRP on the said box as Rs.4750/- for 2 Arm Sleeves and the complainant was purchasing only one Piece of Arm Sleeve from the Opposite Party.  It is also stated that left with no option, the complainant was compelled to make payment of Rs.4500/- to the Opposite Party on 8.7.2017 even for one Arm Stocking (Ann.C-5 to  C-7). It is submitted that from the documents and photocopies of the box shows two type of price slips, one put by the Sigvaris and one by Opposite Party and as such, the Opposite Party has overcharged the complainant by selling the product over and above the printed MRP rate on the product and thus have indulged into unfair trade practice. It is also submitted that the Opposite Party even tempered with the month of import on the said box containing the Sigvaris Arm Sleeve from May, 2016 to May, 2017 by using black marker which is visible on the box and this further proves unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Party. Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the product namely Sigvaris Traditional M Long Sleeve Medium 503 is a product which is available in a box with single piece only and therefore, the plea of the complainant that he purchased the Sigvaris Traditional M Long Sleeve Medium 503 in a pair is false and denied as the product is not available in pair of sleeves.

         It is submitted that vide cash Memo No.SO/23356, dated 8.7.2017, one piece of Sigvaris Advance Class-II arm sleeve with mitten grip top was sold to some customer, whereby it was specifically pointed out in the Cash Memo that the box containing one piece is being sold for Rs.4500/-.  It is also submitted that during selling the product, it was specifically stated to the customer that the product i.e. Sigvaris Advance (Class-II) Sleeve only comes in One Piece Per Box (Ann.C-7).  It is further submitted that the MRP of the said product is Rs.4750/- and payment of Rs.4500/- has been taken from the customer by the Opposite Party and hence, the Opposite Party has not charged the customer over and above the MRP.  It is stated that as far as the Barcode sticker with Rs.2800/- is concerned, it is admitted that the sticker of another product with different article number was pasted by mistake by employee of Opposite Party with no intent and such inadvertent mistake is evident from the fact that the Article number mentioned on the Box i.e. 77356 does not match with the article number on the Barcode sticker i.e. 77366.    

         It is pleaded that the complainant never raised any issue of tampering during the purchase of the product nor he approached the Opposite Party in order to seek redressal of his grievance.  It is denied that the Opposite Party has tempered with the price tag.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegation, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Party in reply. 

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The grievance of the complainant is that for one piece of Sigvaris Traditional M Long Arm Sleeve Medium 503, the Opposite Party has charged him in excess than its price fixed by the Opposite Party and further alleged that the Opposite Party has altered/changed the year of import on the box of the said product from 2016 to 2017 with black marker. 

 

7]       Denying the allegation of the complainant, the Opposite Party submitted that the product in dispute i.e. Sigvaris Traditional M Long Arm Sleeve Medium 503 is available in one piece per box only and the MRP (Maximum Retail Price) mentioned on the box states as Rs.4750/- and the complainant was sold the said product at much lesser amount i.e. for Rs.4500/- only and thus no foul has been played by the Opposite Party upon the complainant, as alleged.

 

8]       To clarify qua the Barcode Sticker pasted on the disputed box of Arm Sleeve showing Rs.2800/- as the price of the said product, the Opposite Party stated that the sticker of another product with different article/batch number was pasted by mistake by one of its employee with no ill-will.  Further claimed that such inadvertent mistake is evident from the fact that the article number mentioned on the Box i.e. 77356 does not match with article number on the Barcode sticker i.e. 77366. To support its version, the Opposite Party placed on record an email dated 27.10.2017 (Ann.OP-1) addressed by NovoMed Incorporation Pvt. Ltd., (Importer/Marketing Company of Sigvaris Product) where it has been clarified that Sigvaris Arm sleeves comes in a kit of one arm only in various sizes and this product does not come in a pack of pair, thus by printing mistake only it has wrongly been mentioned as pair in MRP stickers (Ann.OP-1). 

 

9]       Thorough scrutiny of the record reveals that the submissions made by the Opposite Party are no less than a bundle of lies, which sounds unfair trade practice resorted to by it at the instance of gullible consumers.

 

10]      In our opinion procurement of the clarification from NovoMed Incorporation Pvt. Ltd., which is Importer/Marketing Company of Sigvaris product, qua wrong printing of Import date/year as well mentioning of ‘Pair’ on the MRP sticker on the box containing product in question, is totally an eyewash & a white lie, done to bury the truth so that the illegal & unfair practice adopted by the Opposite Party should not be exposed. 

 

11]      The clarification qua misprinting about the quantity of the product in question should have been sought from the parent company itself i.e. the manufacturer of the product in question.  The absence of such clarification from the manufacturer’s end create a suspicion that NovoMed Incorporation Pvt. Ltd., Importer/ Marketing Company of Sigvaris product and the Opposite Party in the present complaint are hand in glove with each other for illegal & unfair activities challenged in the present complaint. 

 

12]      The bill (Ann.C-5, dated 8.7.2017) generated by the Opposite Party do reflects an unfair trade practice resorted to by the Opposite Party.  Although the Opposite Party in its reply claimed that due to mistake on the part of its employee, a different Barcode Sticker with price of Rs.2800/- has been pasted inadvertently on the box of the product in question sold to the complainant, but this plea taken by the Opposite Party is not worthy of belief.  For a short while, if this plea of the Opposite Party is taken as correct, for a while, then in that situation, the amount mentioned on that wrongly pasted barcode sticker should have been reflected in the bill i.e. Rs.2800/- instead of Rs.4500/- as mentioned in the disputed bill. Surprisingly the bar code reader read only the batch number and product details as mentioned on the so called wrongly pasted Barcode sticker and not the price so mentioned on that sticker in dispute.  This act of the Opposite Party clearly proves that it has tempered with the price of the product in the bill by changing it to Rs.4500/- from Rs.2800/-.

 

13]      From the above facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the unfair fair trade practice resorted to by the Opposite party is proved. Thus, the complaint is allowed against the Opposite party with directions to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for the harassment suffered by him due to unfair trade practice adopted by it which also includes excess amount charged from him, besides paying litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.

 

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from the above relief.   

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

24^th April, 2018   

                                                                                      Sd/-  

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER