Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/535

Mr.Anil Kumar Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vishal Mega Mart - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

05 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.535 of 25.07.2016

Date of order          :   05.06.2017

 

Mr.Amit Kumar Mishra s/o Anil Kumar Mishra r/o 105, Ramandeep Colony, 33 Feet Road, Near Poultary Form, Mundian Kalan, Ludhiana-PIN-141015, Punjab.

Complainant

Versus

 

Vishal Mega Mart, Sector 32, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.

Opposite party

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         In person

For OP                           :         Sh.Sukhbir Singh Bhalla, Advocate

 

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.             Complainant purchased a hand wash from OP on 27.4.2016 by paying Rs.159/- against bill No.050/1360000003807 dated 27.4.2016, though MRP of the said product was  Rs.150/-. When the complainant contacted OP, then they refused to receive the complaint, but misbehaved with him. So, complainant sent letter through registered post on 6.5.2016. After more than 2 months, OP did not give any reply to complainant and that is why, complaint filed for seeking apologies for the misbehavior done by OP along with refund of excess charged price of Rs.9/-. Compensation for physical and mental agony of Rs.50,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- more claimed.

2.                In reply, it is claimed that complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and same is filed for abusing the process of law. Complaint alleged to be filed with malafide intention for harassing OP just for getting wrongful monetary gains. It is claimed that the complainant has failed to prove any unfair trade practice, deficiency in service or negligence on the part of OP. Besides, it is claimed that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. It is also claimed that Vishal Mega Mart is not a juristic person, which can be sued under law. Rather, Vishal Mega Mart is merely a trade name of company M/s Airplaza Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd. This company operates and manages its multi brand retail outlets across the country including the store in question. Complainant purchased the hand wash product in question after verifying and duly checking the same and on being satisfied with the condition, quality and price of the same. Price of the said hand wash was paid against raised bill and thereafter, the product was delivered to the complainant along with invoice placed on record by the complainant himself. Admittedly, Green Roots Peach Liquid Hand Wash product having Article Code No.1311010359 with MRP of Rs.159/- was sold to the complainant. There arises no question of selling the product to the complainant on a price higher than the MRP as alleged. The original sample of the said product lying with OP will be produced before the court as and when directed. Neither the complainant visited the retail outlet of OP and nor any notice as alleged sent by the complainant ever received by OP. It is denied that the complainant purchased hand wash from OP of Rs.150/- on 27.4.2016. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

4.                On the other hand, Sh.Sumit Kumar Parashar, representative of OP along with counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Sumit Kumar Parashar along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and even tendered the product in question with small size product as Ex.R4 and Ex.R4/1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed by counsel for parties and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                Complainant has brought in this Forum the empty container of Green Roots Peach Liquid hand wash, which he claims to have purchased from OP on 27.4.2016 through invoice produced on record as Ex.C3. This hand wash was purchased for Rs.159/- by the complainant through bill No.050/1360000003807 of 27.4.2016. Purchase of this product through this bill by the complainant has been admitted in para no.10 of preliminary objections of written statement submitted by OP, but with claim that it bear MRP of Rs.159/-. It is vehemently contended by counsel for Ops that a bar code exist on each and every sold item and as such question of charging price in excess of MRP does not arise at all. It is vehemently contended by counsel for OP that in fact, the bar code scanner will not work, if the MRP is less or higher than that of the tag price to be charged. So, in view of this, it is vehemently contended that empty container produced by the complainant in fact was not the substance purchased by the complainant through bill Ex.C3. All these submissions advanced by counsel for Ops has no force because the purpose of bar code use is not to check the price to be charged viz-a-viz the MRP. Rather, a bar code is a really simple idea, which gives every item that anyone wants to classify its own unique number and then simply print the number on the item, so that an electronic scanning device can read it. So, the function of bar code is virtually to classify a product by assigning a unique number, which can be read through an electronic scanner device. This is made out from internet prints extracted from Google Internet Search by this Forum. This print is made a part of this file. As per this      Google Internet Search prints, a barcode-based stock system has three main parts normally. First of that part contains a central computer running a database(record system), which keeps a tally of all the products, which a trader is selling. This first part further notifies as to who has made the product and as to what is the cost of the product and as to how many items are there in the stock. Second part of this system of barcode contains printing on all products. The third part consists of one or more checkout scanners that can read the barcodes. As per this Google Internet Search, one can change the price as often through this barcode as one likes without act of putting new price tag on all the bottles. So, from this Google Internet Search, it is made out that purpose of assigning barcode is to provide unique identity to the product for its identification through scan reading. As price through barcode system can be changed as per liking without putting any new price tag and as such, it is not the function of barcode to check the putting of correct price tag on the product. If that be position, then submission of counsel for Op has no force that barcode scanner will not work if MRP printed is above the price to be charged.

7.                Further, as per Google Internet Search, the barcode provides three types of information. The first part of a barcode discloses the country where it was issued. Second part reveals the manufacturer of the product and final part identifies the product itself. Different types of the same basic product have totally different barcode numbers e.g.four packs of Coca Cola bottles and six packs of coca cola cans will have totally different barcode numbers. If that be the position, then the function of barcode is to provide information with respect to the name and place of the manufacturer of the product and to provide identification of the product for the purpose of scan reading only. So, checking on the price part through barcode scanner is not contemplated by the working of the barcode scanner at all. In view of this, certainly submissions advanced by complainant in person has force that product purchased by him actually was having MRP of Rs.150/-, but despite that amount of Rs.159/- charged from him through bill Ex.C3. Photostat copy of said product also produced on record as Ex.C2 to establish that offered price endorsed there on is Rs.150/-. Even the original empty container produced by the complainant during course of arguments (but returned back to him) shows that offer price of the product is Rs.150/-. The same is reflected through Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 also. The products produced as Ex.R4 and Ex.R4/A in course of evidence by Op shown to counsel for OP for asking as to what is the date of manufacture of the product   produced by him and also of the container produced by the complainant during course of arguments. Counsel for OP admitted that product produced by the complainant has manufacturing date of March 2016, but of OP has manufacturing date as August 2016.  So, it is obvious that the products Ex.R4 and Ex.R4/A produced by the OP during course of argument denote MRP as settled during August 2016. However, the product in question purchased by the complainant on 27.4.2016 and as such, the products Ex.R4 and Ex.R4/A virtually do not at all establish as to what was the chargeable MRP in April 2016 of hand wash branded as Green Roots Peach Liquid hand wash. If that be the position, then certainly submissions advanced by  complainant                  has force that product was having MRP of Rs.150/- printed thereon at the time of purchase by him on 27.4.2016. It is on account of this that complainant lodged complaint with OP through registered posts on 6.5.2016 and those registered posts shown to be delivered to OP on 7.5.2016 as well as on 9.5.2016 as borne from the contents of letters received from Superintendent Post Office, Ludhiana, copies of which are placed on record as Ex.C6 and Ex.C7. Even the record of telephone bills Ex.C10 and Ex.C12 shows that the complainant gave telephonic calls even on 29.4.2016 and 28.4.2016. So, certainly contents of affidavit Ex.CA of complainant are correct that he lodged protest regarding excessive charging of price immediately after purchase through Facebook and that print of the same is there on record as Ex.C2. So, it is a case, in which, complainant raised protest against excessive charging of price than that of MRP of Rs.150/- on 27.4.2016 itself at 9:56 PM. This timing is visible on Facebook print on the above of the print of Ex.C2. As despite raising of this protest, complainant could not get justice and that is why, he has to approach this Forum. Charging of Rs.9/- in excess of the MRP of Rs.150/- is an unfair trade practice and as such, certainly complainant entitled for the refund of this excess charged amount of Rs.9/- along with compensation for mental harassment and agony of somewhat reasonable amount along with litigation expenses, particularly when he has to agitate through social media(Facebook) and contact on telephone.

8.                Products Ex.R4 and Ex.R4/A may got back by OP after expiry of period of limitation of appeal or/revision and after satisfying this Forum that    no appeal or revision has been preferred or if preferred, then same has been decided finally.  

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OP will refund the excess charged amount of Rs.9/- and even it will pay Rs.4000/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony, but Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Payment of these amounts be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                 (G.K.Dhir)

                        Member                                                       President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:05.06.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.