Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/179

Deepak Narula - Complainant(s)

Versus

vishal Megamart - Opp.Party(s)

S.P.Sharma Adv.

13 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 179 dated 11.09.2020.                                                        Date of decision: 13.12.2022.

 

Deepak Narula aged about 32 years son of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, resident of Near Lal Kothi, Satjot Nagar, Dhandra Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                   ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Vishal Megamart Plot No.1, Main Dhandra Road, Adjoining Jolly H.P. Centre, Ludhiana through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. Manager/Authorized Signatory           Vishal Megamart Plot No.1, Main Dhandra Road, Adjoining Jolly H.P. Centre, Ludhiana                                                                                                        …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. S.P. Sharma, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Puneet Gupta, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the complaint are that opposite party No.1 is running a Franchisee store operated by Air Plaza Retail Holding Pvt. Ltd. and one of its branch is situated at the given address. Opposite party No.2 is fully responsible for its day to day affairs of opposite party No.2. On 13.02.2020, the complainant purchased “KLF Nirmal Ginerally Oil of 500 ML” from opposite party No.1 vide bill No.4055640002001 (Ex. C4) from counter No.5 by paying a price of Rs.165/- through his Rupay Debit Card of Axis Bank bearing card No.6522360011222472. The opposite parties received payment and issued a receipt Ex. C5 in this regard. After the purchase when the complainant reached his house, he found that the bottle bears MRP (Maximum Retail Price) of Rs.160/- whereas opposite party No.1 had charged Rs.165/- from the complainant i.e. Rs.5/- in excess of the MRP. The complainant immediately approached opposite party No.1 and narrated the said fact but the opposite party No.1 did not respond. The photo of the product reflecting MRP of Rs.160/- was also taken and attached with the complaint as Ex. C6. The opposite parties have received excess amount from the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has also mental harassment and agony and financial loss for which the opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation. The complainant served a legal notice Ex. C1 upon the opposite parties on 28.02.2020 through his counsel Sh. S.P. Sharma, Advocate and called upon the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- and further a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment, financial loss, damages, mental torture and agony suffered by the complainant. The opposite parties have never sent any reply to the said legal notice. Hence the complaint whereby the complainant has prayed for direction to opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of estimated loss, Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment, loss, damages, mental pain and agony to the complainant and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.   

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement stating therein that opposite party namely Vishal Mega Mart Store, is operated and managed by company namely Airplaza Retail Holdings Private Limited. The opposite party being “Vishal Mega Mart” is the brand name licensed to M/s.Airplaza Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and amendments thereto. The company operates and manages Vishal Mega Mart retail stores/outlets across the length and breadth of India including the store situated at Ludhiana, Punjab and Sh. Sahil Rana son of Sh. Subhash Singh Rana, Assistant Store Manager at the retail store of the company at Ludhiana has been authorized vide authorization letter dated 03.03.2021. The opposite parties also took preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the complaint and further there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. It was further stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the complainant had tried to mislead this Commission by submitting evasive and misleading averments of charging over and above MRP by opposite parties although the opposite parties never do any kind of mistake as the price of the product is automatically entered into by the magnetic bar code of the product printed on it. The averments made in the complaint are incomplete and misleading which have been carved  out in a manner to falsely showcase that the complainant had been duped by the opposite parties by charging Rs.5/- more than the MRP of that product. In para No.7 of preliminary objections and submissions, the opposite parties stated that the complainant herein had allegedly visited the said store of opposite party No.1 on13.02.2020 and purchased “KLF Nirmal Ginerally Oil of 500 ML” from the store of MRP Rs.165/-. It is stated that the product name has been wrongly mentioned by the complainant and the correct name of the product is “KLF Nirmal Gingelly Oil”. The MRP of the product was Rs.165/- and no excess amount was received by the opposite parties and the allegations are meritless, baseless and false. There is no deficiency in services in any manner whatsoever on the part of the opposite party and same can be validated by perusal of MRP printed on the product and also produced photo of the product as Annexure-OP2 reflecting MRP of Rs.165/-. It is further averred that if there was any issue at the billing counter or at any time during the visit to the store, customers can complaint directly to the Store Manager available in all stores during working hours. Moreover, the customer can also make a complaint in a complaint book kept in all stores in order to provide better services to all its customers. It has been further averred that the complainant failed to exercise his right to complaint against the said retailer as there was no such incident took place and the complainant is making utterly fallible allegations against the opposite parties and the complainant be put to strict proof. The complainant never contacted the store manager or any other employee and has made allegations against the Store without producing any proof thereof, as such the complainant has failed to substantiate his own claims which are false, unfounded and wrong. It is settled principle of law that every complaint or plaint has to stand on its own strength/legs. The opposite party received the false and concocted legal notice dated 28.02.2020 which is duly replied by them by denying all the vague, false, vexatious and concocted averments made therein. While giving para wise reply, the opposite parties reiterated the facts mentioned in the preliminary objections and submissions and once again denied for having indulged in unfair trade practice or there was deficiency in service. It was further alleged that the legal notice dated 28.02.2020 with concocted story and false allegations was received by the opposite parties and same was suitably responded by them with correct facts vide reply dated 02.07.2020 long with picture of the product having MRP Rs.165/- Annexure-OP3. It was further alleged that the complainant has made just bald and baseless allegations with ulterior motive as bring disrepute to the opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the legal notice dated 28.02.2020, Ex. C2 and Ex. C3 are the postal receipts, Ex. C4 is the bill/invoice issued by the opposite parties, Ex. C5 copy of receipt of digital payment, Ex. C6 is the photograph of the bottle having inscription of G/07/P1, Dec. 2019, Rs.160/-, Ex. C7 is the reply of the opposite parties dated 02.07.2020 and Ex. C8 is the copy of Adhaar card of the complainant and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties submitted affidavit Ex. DW1 of Sh. Sahil Rana, authorized representative of the opposite parties along with document Ex. OP1 authorization letter, Ex. OP2 is collectin of six photographs of the bottle from different angles and Ex. OP3 is the reply to legal notice dated 02.07.2020 and closed the evidence. 

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit, reply and annexed documents produced on record by the parties. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by the opposite parties.

6.                There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has purchased “KLF Nirmal Ginerally Oil of 500 ML” from opposite party No.1 on 13.02.2020  vide bill No.4055640002001 Ex. C4 for a sum of Rs.165/- The point in issue is that whether the product bearing MRP of Rs.160/- was sold in excess of Rs.5/- by the opposite parties or not. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been enacted to protect the interest of the consumer. As per its statement of objects and reason placed before the Parliament the Act has been enacted to promote and protect the rights of consumer as given in Section 2(9) of the Consumer Protection Act which is reproduced as under:-

“Consumer Rights S. 2(9)

(9) “consumer rights” includes,

(i)      the right to be protected against the marketing of goods, products or services which are hazardous to life and property;

(ii)     the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods, products or services, as the case may be, so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices;

(iii)    the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to a variety of goods, products or services at competitive prices;

(iv)     the right to be heard and to be assured that consumer’s interest will receive due consideration at appropriate fora;

(v)      the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and

(vi)     the right to consumer awareness.

7.                The complainant approached this Commission exercising his statutory right to redress against unfair trade practice and unscrupulous exploitation of the consumer. The word ‘complaint’ has also been defined in Section 2(6) of the Consumer Protection Act in clause (iv) which is relevant for the adjudication of the matter in controversy, is reproduced as under:-

Section 2(6) (iv) a trader or a service provider, as the case may be, has charged for the goods or for the services mentioned in the complaint, a price in excess of the price

1. fixed by or under any law for the time being in force; or
2. displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods; or
3. displayed on the price list exhibited by him by or under any law for the time being in force; or
4. agreed between the parties.

 

MRP denotes ‘Maximum Retail Price’ which is the maximum amount a retailer can charge from a buyer including taxes. The retailer can charge below the MRP but cannot cross threshold of the amount specified in MRP even by a single paisa.

8.                Ex. C6 is the photograph produced by the complainant and the other six photographs have been produced by the opposite parties under the head Ex. OP2. A careful examination of these photographs reveals that on one side of the wrapper of the product, below net quantity 500 Ml. (455Gm), Lot No., MFD, MRP has been written in bracket and there is an indication to see the side for the relevant information. When the side of the bottle seen on Ex. C6 G/07/P1, Dec. 2019 Rs.160/- has been mentioned. Corresponding to the lot number, manufacturing date and MRP.  This pattern is also identically printed though with different dates and numbers on the photographs of the bottle produced by the opposite parties. This clearly shows that a particular lot number, manufacturing date and price has been printed on each product so to comply the legal requirements.

9.                Ex. C4 is the admitted document by both parties in the form of invoice issued by the opposite parties at the time of sale of the bottle in question.

10.              Rule 5 of the Consumer Protection (General) Rule 2020 provides the manner of issuing invoice or bill or cash memo or receipt for goods sold or services rendered, which is reproduced as under:-

 (1) Every invoice, bill, cash memo or receipt for goods sold or services rendered, issued by a seller shall have the following minimum particulars, namely:-

(a) The name and address of the seller;

(b) a consecutive serial number not exceeding sixteen characters, in one or multiple series, containing letters or numerals or special characters (hyphen or dash, and slash, symbolised as “-” and “/” respectively) and any combination thereof, unique for a financial year;

(c) the date of its issue;

 (d) the name of the consumer;

(e) the description of goods or services;

 (f) the quantity, in case of goods;

(g) the shipping address, where applicable;

 (h) the taxable value and discounts;

(i) the rate of tax;

(j) the signature of the seller or his authorised representative;

 (k) the customer care number or e-mail ID, where available, and

(l) the total price in single figure, along with the breakup price showing all the compulsory and voluntary charges, such as delivery charges, postage and handling charges, conveyance charges and the applicable tax: Provided that where such invoice, bill, cash memo or receipt is issued by a seller in electronic form, the signature of the seller is not required.

(2) The serial number on the invoice, bill, cash memo or receipt to be issued by a seller shall not be altered, removed, replaced, or erased under any circumstances.”

11.              The aforesaid rules also make it crystal clear that the description of a product is also one of the most essential requirements to be mentioned in the memo. Perusal of the bill/invoice Ex. C4 shows that the article description has been mentioned with article code “HSN”. Another ten digit and four digit number has also been mentioned in that column but the important and vital information i.e. lot/batch number has not been mentioned in the said column. Article code and the secret number(s) mentioned are only decipherable by the opposite parties themselves and not by the consumer. So non-mentioning of lot/batch number explicitly and mentioning of certain secret article codes in the invoice is gross violation of mandate of law. It also infringes the valuable “right to be informed” of the consumer as envisaged in 2(9) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act that the consumer has right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods, products or services as the case may be.

12.              Further Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act being lengthiest definition is also considered to be a self contained code and its clause Nos.vii are also relevant in reference to the subject matter of the case and the same is reproduced as under:-

(vii)    not issuing bill or cash memo or receipt for the goods sold or services rendered in such manner as may be prescribed.

From the above said facts, it is clear that the opposite parties have not issued a bill of goods sold in manner prescribed under law which amounts to unfair trade practice. The opposite parties were required to issue bill in a transparent and legal manner.

13.              It is also admitted that the complainant served legal notice Ex. C1 dated 28.02.2020 i.e. within 15 days after the purchase of the bottle to the opposite parties and which was replied vide Ex. OP3 dated 02.07.2020 after elapse of four months. It is also violation of clause viii of Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, which is reproduced as under:-

(viii)   refusing, after selling goods or rendering services, to take back or withdraw defective goods or to withdraw or discontinue deficient services and to refund the consideration thereof, if paid, within the period stipulated in the bill or cash memo or receipt or in the absence of such stipulation, within a period of thirty days.

14.              The opposite parties could have replied promptly or initiated the refund of amount charged in excess on the receipt of the legal notice but they maintained a stoic silence for four months for the reasons best known to them.

15.              During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant produced the bottle for inspection before this Commission and its particulars displayed in the photographs Ex. C6 resemblance with the actual bottle. The counsel for the opposite parties at the fag end contended that it is not the same bottle which was not sold at counter of their store. This contention is without merits  as till date the opposite parties have not asserted either in reply to legal notice and in their written statement, affidavit that they had never ever sold this bottle to the complainant. It appears to an afterthought. So it is evident that opposite parties had charged Rs.5/- in excess of MRP and indulged in unfair trade practice and have provided the deficient service to the complainant.

16.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to the opposite parties to refund of Rs.5/-, the excess charged amount of MRP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties are further directed to pay composite costs of Rs.7000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

17.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:13.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Deepak Narula Vs Vishal Mega Mart                              CC/20/179

Present:       Sh. S.P. Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with direction to the opposite parties to refund of Rs.5/-, the excess charged amount of MRP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties are further directed to pay composite costs of Rs.7000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:13.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.