STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                    (Additional Bench)

Sahil Dawar S/o Sh.Ashok Kumar, resident of H.No.1263, Sector-34-C, Chandigarh. 

                                                                                     … Appellant

V E R S U S

1.        Van Hussen, No.415, Mehrauli Gurugram Road, Ambience        Island, DLF Phase-3, Ghitorni, New Delhi 110030, throughits Manager, proprietor, Authorized Signatory.

2. Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited, Piramal Agastaya Corporate Park Building ‘A’ 4 and 5^th floor, Unit No.401, 403, 501, 503, LBS Road, Kurl Mumbai, Maharashtra-400070 through its Manager, proprietor, Authorized Signatory.

                                                                         ..... Respondents

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 05.03.2024 passed by       District       Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.484/2023.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Argued by:      S/Sh.Ankit Aggarwal & Gautam Bhardwaj, Advocates for                     the appellant. 

 PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.03.2024, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the complaint in the following terms;  

1.   to refund ₹50/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint till onwards.
2.    to pay an amount of ₹1500/- to the complainant(s) as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3.    to pay ₹2000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

                    The above order was directed to be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they were made liable to  make  payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the order, till realization, apart from compliance of the direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

2.            Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the Complainant/appellant  that  he visited the shopping store of OP No.1 located at Delhi and found that  an offer/scheme was going on in the shop of the Opposite Party  according to which  on purchase of  an  article, the purchaser was to get  two articles of the same value or less value  free. Accordingly the complainant purchased articles/ clothes  from  OP No.1 worth Rs.899/- alonwith other two articles which were of the  same price.  The price tag of the articles annexed as  C-1  whereas the bill dated 28.06.2023 issued by OP No.1 is  C-2. However, the complainant shocked to see that instead of charging Rs.899/- against the said articles, the OPs had charged Rs.949/- i.e. Rs.50/- in excess to the actual price as shown on the tag  C-1 and by overcharging an amount of Rs.50/-  in excess against the actual price, the OPs were deficient in providing service and indulged into unfair trade practice  since the OPs were misleading the complainant and other gullible consumers by overcharging  them. The complainant resisted the aforesaid act of the OPs but nothing was done in this regard. Alleging   deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the  OPs, a consumer complaint was filed before the Learned Lower Commission. 

3.                Pursuant to issuance of notice of  the complaint, Opposite Parties/respondents did not appear before the  Ld. Lower Commission despite proper service and suffered ex parte proceedings vide order dated 7.12.2023.. 

 4.                  On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission partly allowed the complaint, as stated in the opening part of this order.   

5.               Still dissatisfied with  the  aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal  has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant  seeking enhancement of compensation/ modification of the  impugned order.

6.              After hearing learned Counsel for the appellant and going through the record we find that according to  C-1 the price tag of the sold products  the Maximum Retail Price of the subject product is Rs.899/-  inclusive of all taxes. However,  vide  bill  C-2 issued by the respondents  an amount of Rs.949/- was charged  despite of the fact that the tag of the product  C-1 clearly indicates that the Maximum Retail Price of the product  is Rs.899/- inclusive of all taxes. Thus, as observed by the Learned Lower Commission the respondents overcharged an amount of Rs.50/-  from the appellant while selling the subject product by adding taxes which were otherwise already included in the MRP and the aforesaid act of the OPs amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Accordingly the Learned Lower Commission ordered refund of an overcharged amount of Rs.50/- alongwith interest and Compensation of Rs.1500/-for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.2000/- as litigation costs. Thus, the appellant was adequately compensated for the loss sustained by him. It has been repeatedly held by this Commission and the Apex Commission that the Consumer Foras are not  the platform to get unduly enrichment.

7.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed at the preliminary stage,   with no order as to costs. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.  

8.                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

9.                     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.