Haryana

StateCommission

A/1322/2017

KARAMVIR YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

VISHAL MEGA MART RETAIL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

27 Sep 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    1322 of 2017

Date of Institution:      02.11.2017

Date of Decision :      27.09.2018

 

Karamvir Yadav s/o Sh. Daya Ram Yadav, Resident of V.P.O. Pali, Tehsil and District Rewari, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Vishal Mega Mart Retail Limited, SCO No.121, Brass Market, Rewari, Haryana through its Manager.

2.      Vishal Mega Mart Retail Limited, Plot No.184, Platinum Tower, 5^th Floor, Udyog Vihar, Phase 1, Gurgaon, Haryana-122016 through its Managing Director.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          None for appellant.

                             Shri Sumer Singh Brar, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated October 04^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.                As per version of complainant-Karamvir Yadav (appellant herein) on October 16^th, 2016, he purchased some household articles including a packet of 500 grams Besan of Rajdhani brand from the store of the opposite parties – Vishal Mega Mart Retail Limited situated at Brass Market, Rewari vide bill dated October 16^th, 2016 on payment of Rs.815/-. After purchase the complainant inspected the items purchased from the opposite parties and it came to his notice that regarding item No.14 recorded in the bill it was mentioned that Besan was having MRP of Rs.78/- but the opposite parties-respondents charged from the complainant an amount of Rs.85/-. In this way, the opposite parties received an amount of Rs.7/- in excess from the complainant and violated the provisions of The Consumer Goods (mandatory printing of cost of production and maximum retail price) Act, 2006 as well as The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complainant requested the opposite parties for refund of extra amount of Rs.7/- from him but the opposite parties refused to do so.

3.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.7/- received in excess from the complainant with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the complainant; to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-  as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment and deficiency in service and an amount of Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses. It is also prayed that sale records of the opposite parties also may be seized and got audited.

4.                The opposite parties in their written version have taken plea that the MRP of product sold in the stores of the opposite parties varies from time to time. The MRP of a particular product is embossed on the packing of the product by the manufacturer and not by the opposite parties. MRP may change from month to month which is flashed on the screen of computer also. There may be possibilities that the complainant might have received two bills of different MRPs of the same product. Moreover, the billing process is totally automated and no manual interference is possible. It is denied that the opposite parties have charged an amount of Rs.7/- in excess and prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.

5.                Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.

6.                After hearing arguments vide impugned order dated October 04^th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.7/- to the complainant along with an amount of Rs.700/- as compensation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order.

7.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated October 04^th, 2017, the complainant/appellant has filed the present First Appeal No.1322 of 2017 which was received by post with a prayer to modify the impugned order and to grant relief to the complainant as prayed in the complaint.

8.                The complainant at the time of submitting his appeal by post also requested that the appeal be decided in his absence.

9.                After receiving memorandum of appeal, notice was issued to the appellant-complainant also. On June 25^th, 2018 date fixed, the appellant-complainant did not appear despite service as per report. Anyhow, the appellant-complainant has shown his willingness that his appeal be decided without his appearance. So, the appeal is being decided in the absence of the appellant.

10.              We have heard learned counsel for the respondents-opposite parties and also have perused the grounds of appeal as well as documents placed on the file.

11.              There appears to be no controversy of any type that the complainant Karamvir Yadav on October 16^th, 2016 purchased some domestic items from Vishal Mega Mart Retail Limited-opposite parties including one packet weighing 500 grams Besan of Rajdhani brand on payment of Rs.815/-. It is evident from the bill Exhibit CW1/1 that an amount of Rs.85/- was received from the complainant by the opposite parties as price of Besan packet. It is evident from the Pouch of Rajdhani Besan placed on the file Exhibit CW1-2 that MRP has been printed as Rs.78/-. The opposite parties could not produce any convincing evidence to prove that the MRP of Rs.78/- was of any previous month or that the same had been changed in the current month when the Besan packet was purchased. In this way, on the basis of evidence on the file mentioned above, findings can be safely given that the opposite parties received an amount of Rs.7/- in excess from the complainant when he purchased a packet of Besan on October 16^th, 2016.

12.              Learned District Forum has already given direction to the opposite parties to make payment of an amount of Rs.7/- received in excess, to the complainant along with an amount of Rs.700/- as compensation. The opposite parties appear to be satisfied if the order dated October 04^th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum as the opposite parties did not prefer to file an appeal against the impugned order.  The grievance of the appellant-complainant appears to be genuine.  Although the amount claimed in this case was only Rs.7/- as well as compensation amount but the step taken by the complainant, we feel, should be appreciated, as he took a decision to go into litigation for his rights and financial loss caused to him. Moreover, this fact also cannot be overlooked that only an amount of Rs.7/- was received in excess from the complainant. In these circumstances, it will not be justified to award huge amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation as claimed in the complaint. Moreover, this fact also cannot be overlooked that the opposite parties also might have learnt a lesson by spending so much amount in this litigation. 

13.              Keeping in mind all these circumstances, findings of the learned District Forum appear to be justified and are held to be valid.  We feel that the complainant has been sufficiently compensated and there is no scope for enhancement of compensation. We find no merit in the appeal and the appeal stands dismissed

 

Announced: 27.09.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL