O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K. MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant in brief is that complainant had purchased 12 items of different products including two packs of baby diapers of his infant from OP’s shop on 31/05/2009. That he paid Rs.424.10/- to OP towards the bill amount for the items he purchased. After reaching home complainant cross checked the bill and the products. He found some malafide transaction happened with him in which that OP had charged more cost for the baby diapers. On the wrapper of the said item specifically mentioned the price of a pack is Rs.18/- inclusive of all taxes. But OP charged Rs.22/- for each packet of the said item. Complainant had purchased two packs of diapers, OP supposed to charge Rs.36/- @ Rs.18/- par pack, instead he charged Rs.44/-. Immediately complainant called the OP on their telephone and informed about it. OP taken it very lightly and justified himself, not bothered about refund of excess money he collected. Complainant visited OP and demanded reimbursement of Rs.8/- excessively colleted as against MRP and also requested to provide information about taxes collected. OP continued giving evasive answer and rude behavior with complainant. So, he approached forum to seek relief and for directing the OP to stop unfair trade practice by granting Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, punitive damages to curb unfair trade practice and exploitation of consumers, Direct OP to issue and apology letter to the complainant and for cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Notice sent to OP through RPAD was duly served and has appeared through an advocate and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in his service committed as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act 1986, and thereby has prayed for dismissal of the complainant.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OP denied the allegation made by the complainant against them and has taken a stand that while selling the goods rates of certain items some times are charged more than MRP rates. Even OP denied the allegation of they indulging in unfair trade practice and malafide intention of cheating public.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OP apologied for the technical error caused and also submitted that OP is ready to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant. OP also submitted that the complainant is their regular customer and no such incident happened earlier.<br /> <br /> The parties have filed their affidavit evidence re-producing what they have stated in their respective complainant and version. The complainant has produced tax invoice along with the complainant which reflects the transaction that the complainant had with the OP which also contain MRP rates of goods sold to the complainant and the amount charged by the OP. OP has not produced any documents. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> On the above materials, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1) Whether the complainant proves that OP has indulged in <br /> <br /> unfair trade practice by selling the items to the <br /> <br /> complainant by charging excess cost as against the MRP <br /> <br /> rate?<br /> <br /> 2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Answer on point No:1 In the affirmative. <br /> <br /> Answer on Point No:2 To see the final order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Answer on point No:1: The grievance of the, complainant that when he purchased two packs of diapers, OP was supposed to charge Rs.36/-@ Rs.18/- per pack as per the MRP as printed on them. Instead he charged Rs.44/- and the same has been collected. Immediately when the complainant telephoned the OP and informed about it he had justified his mistake but did not intend to refund of excess money he has collected. Complainant visited OP and demanded reimbursement of Rs.8/- excessively collected as against MRP and also requested to provide information about taxes collected. OP neither refund the excess amount collected by him nor apologized to him about the mistake done by him. Instead he behaved badly with him. Complainant has produced documents of telephone bills to prove the calls made to OP’s telephone No:64501672 has not been controverted.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In the affidavit evidence of OP he has admitted the excess collection of amount but stated that due to advertence of the cashier malafide intention to cheat the customers or gain more profit out of it. We find here that may be a typographical error. For that reason OP apologized and ready to refund the amount. It indicates that OP has committed the mistake deliberately. When OP himself admitted the mistake committed by the staff then many more consumers might have suffered like this. We should bear in mind that all those consumers never come to seek relief under law or some even will never verify the bifurcated billing for their own reasons.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> At the time of arguments, counsel for OP submitted that sometimes mistake occurs in the computer operation while generating bills, which is not an intentional one. At the same time, OP denied that indulged in unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> On perusal of the invoice and products produced with packed wrapper by the complainant, no doubt, the OP had charged Rs.4/- excess per pack as against MRP i.e. Rs.18/- which indicates that OP has caused deficiency in its service. Hence, OP is liable to compensate for that. With all these reasons, we are of the view that the OP has not given accepted reasons or justification in collecting excess money than the MRP rate that was printed and that in our view is nothing short of unfair trade practice. This is a monetary transaction, when a person is sitting on the billing counter, he has to take all necessary precautions to cross check the MRP and the amount mentioned in the bill. It was common phenomena when several items were purchased no customer will go in detail of each and every item by cross checking the items in the bill. Some will pay the amount soon after the announcement of amount and some may cross check after they left the shop or some may not cross check even. If it is cross checked and found mistake they will enquire with the shops otherwise it will go without notice It will become a profit to the shop owners. If it is happened unintentionally, OP should have refunded the excess amount to the complainant immediately when it came to his knowledge but has not done so. We appreciate that OP when he has come farward with his admission of having sold diapers for more than the MRP rate. But stated it was done inadvertently by his men and of course has apologized for it. We would have appreciated them if they had extended that apology to the complainant and refunded the excess money received from the complainant when he spoke to them through phone and went all the way to their premises for bringing to the notice about this unfairness. The complainant in his complaint and also in the affidavit evidence has spoken to this effort he made by even giving phone Number through which he contacted OPs and the arrogant and irresponsible replay they gave to him. OPs have not denied this allegation of the complainant about ill-treatment he had suffered at the hands of OP. We are seeing such attitudes of dealers like Ops who come forward with pretended tears before this forum showing concern to set right the grievance when forum intervance. We should bear in mind that they never care to set right the deficiency they have caused and give relief to the consumer when they approach them. Many unascertainable consumers are suffering at the hands of this type of Ops. Further for the reasons assigned above, many number of consumers for their own difficulties or reasons may not approach this forum. We would like to invoke powers wested in this forum U/S 14 of the Act to impose punitive damages against the OP to check them or prevent them from continuing this practice. Hence we answer No:1 in the affirmative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed. OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order, failing which they shall pay interest @12% p.a. on that amount from the date of this order till payment.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Op is directed to remit Rs.10,000/- to the legal aid account of this Forum. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Op shall also pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 11th March 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />