Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/402

Arun Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vishal Mega Mart - Opp.Party(s)

compl in person

16 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 402 dated 21.08.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 16.05.2022.

 

Er. Arun Garg aged 51 years son of Sh. Sham Lal Garg, resident of House No.40-41, Central Town, Nr. Keys Hotel, Village Dad, P.O. Lalton, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                    ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Vishal Mega Mart, 2435, Maharaj Nagar, Euphoria Towers, Ferozepur Road, Near Circuit House, Ludhiana through its Manager/Owner.      
2. Airplaza Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Franchise Store operator of Vishal Mega Mart, 2435, Maharaj Nagar, Euphoria Towers, Ferozepur Road, Near Circuit House, Ludhiana through its Manager/Managing Director.                                                                             …..Opposite parties 

                   Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer          Protection Act,               1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Complainant Er. Arun Garg in           person.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he along with his daughter made certain purchases from the outlet of the OPs on 16.04.2018. The complainant purchased Chana Kabuli loose, body soaps and biscuits. Rate of Chana Kabuli Medium-loose was displayed on the board as Rs.69/- per Kg against the market price of Rs.75/- per Kg. However, the slip printed at the weighing machine depicted the rate of the said commodity as Rs.85/- per Kg. The person who packed the loose bag  of Chana Kabuli Medium told the complainant that the rate had not been updated at the weighing machine and actually at the billing counter, the rate of Rs.69/- would be charged. However, at the cash counter, the person told the complainant that the rate of Chana Kabuli Medium was Rs.98/- per Kg. When the complainant confronted him that whatever has been mentioned on the weighing chit, he told the complainant that the discount in the bill would be applied and they could charge only Rs.69/- per Kg. However, the complainant was asked to pay a total sum of Rs.262.60 and the rate of roasted chana was applied at Rs.98/- per Kg instead of Chana Kabuli medium. In this manner, the complainant was charged Rs.16.32 extra. This amounts to deficiency of service. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be made to pay a compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant on account of having indulged in unfair trade practice.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed by the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complainant actually purchased roasted chana from the store and he was billed accordingly as is evident from the invoice produced on record by the complainant himself. In fact, the complainant has made a concocted story to malign the reputation of the OPs and there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The complainant purchased roasted chana and was billed for the same and there has been no occasion for the OPs to adopt any unfair trade practice. The other averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                To prove his case, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA along with document Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Raj Sharma, an employee of the OPs along with document Ex. R1 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the complainant in person and counsel for the OPs and also gone through the record carefully. 

6.                The grievance of the complainant is that he purchased Kabuli chana medium (loose) and the rate of the product was displayed on the board at Rs.69/- per Kg. However, in the bill, he was charged @ Rs.98.39 per Kg and after discount of Rs.12.79 i.e. Rs.85.60 whereas the actual price of the product was Rs.69/- and according to the complainant, this amounts to deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant is in the habit of lodging false complaints and the present complaint filed by him is also false and frivolous. According to the counsel for the OP, had there been any discrepancy and if the complainant had not purchased roasted chana, he would have pointed out the person at the counter at the time of billing. According to the counsel for the OPs, in the store of the OPs, the price of all products are feeded in the computer and the bills are generated after the code of the product is feed in the computer which generates bills. Therefore, there is no possibility of wrong billing for charging for another product which was not billed as the products are also scanned at the time of the billing.   

8.                Having weighing the contentions raised by the complainant and the counsel for the OPs, we are of the considered view that admittedly the complainant did not point out the person at the billing counter that he was wrongly charged for roasted chana instead of kabuli chana. Moreover, the complainant has not produced on record the product itself on the photographs of the same to prove that in fact he was delivered kabuli chana and not roasted chana as shown in the invoice. Moreover, the complainant had the option of returning the product at the counter itself if he was being overcharged or if bill/invoice of a wrong product which was not purchased by him. The said option was not exercised by him. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:16.05.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Arun Garg Vs Vishal Mega Mart                           CC/19/402

Present:       Complainant Er. Arun Garg in person.

                   Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate for the OPs.

                  

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:16.05.2022.

Gobind Ram.