Punjab

Sangrur

CC/55/2022

Ankush Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

ZARA - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amit Goyal

22 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                         Complaint No.55

 Instituted on:   06.01.2022

                                                                         Decided on:     22.06.2022

 

Ankush Garg aged 27 years S/o Sh. Parmod Kumar R/O Street No.1, Opposite BSNL Park, Thalesh Bagh Colony, Sangrur.

                                                         …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             ZARA, Inditex Trent Retail India Private Ltd. GF-26-30 & FF 155-159, Plot No.178-178A, Elante Mall, Industrial and Business Park, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Store Manager/Proprietor 160002.

2.     ZARA Inditex Trent Retail India Private Ltd. Ambience Corporate Office, Tower 2, NH-8, Plot No.3, Unit No.1 (Office 1), Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon through its G.M./M.D. 122002.

             ….Opposite parties. 

 

For the complainant  : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.              

For the OPs              : Shri Parmod Saxena, Adv.

 

Quorum                                          

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

 

                        FINAL ORDER

1.           Complainant has approached this Commission alleging inter-alia that he purchased some apparels from OP number 1 vide retail invoice/receipt number 1424-04-S175943 dated 25.12.2021 and paid an amount of Rs.20,970/- as the cost of apparels i.e. three pieces of coat/waist coat.  The grievance of the complainant is that he was surprised to see that OP number 1 had charged Rs.2990/- for one waist coat bearing serial number 0002930471004 whereas the product was bearing the tag with same serial number for a price of Rs.2590/- including all taxes.  Complainant immediately approached OP number 1 that he purchased the product due to the price tag of Rs.2590/- as attached with the same, otherwise he would not have purchased the same for Rs.2990/- as mentioned in the bill. The complainant requested OP number 1 to refund the amount of Rs.400/- so charged in excess by the Ops towards price of the jacket in question, but OPs flatly refused to do so.  The complainant has further alleged that the OP number 1 has indulged into unfair trade practice which has caused mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund him Rs.400/- being the excess amount so charged from the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay him a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment.

2.           In reply filed by Ops, it is stated that the present complaint is gross abuse of the process of law and the complaint is based on false, frivolous and baseless facts solely to suit the nefarious designs of the complainant. The complaint is ex-facie misconceived, vexatious, untenable and devoid of any merit and the complainant has not approached this commission with clean hands. It is stated further that present reply has been prepared and filed by Ops on the basis of the documents filed by the complainant alongwith the complaint. On merits,  it is stated that the complainant was informed that the price of the waist coat in question was Rs.2990/- and not Rs.2590/- and the same was intimated to the complainant before purchasing the same.  The difference in the price was due to a manual error and the price on the bill/system is always correct.  The complainant being aware that the price of the said waist coat was Rs.2990/- and not Rs.2590/- agreed to purchase the said waist coat.  The complainant agreed to pay the amount of Rs.2990/- and purchased the product out of his own free will and paid the amount.  It has been stated that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. Lastly, the Ops have prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

3.           The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence before this Commission in the shape of documents and affidavits.

4.           We have gone through the pleadings put in by both the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance.

5.           The learned counsel for complainant has argued vehemently that the complainant purchased some apparels from OP number 1 vide retail invoice/receipt number 1424-04-S175943 dated 25.12.2021 and paid an amount of Rs.20,970/- as the cost of apparels including waist coat.  Further the learned counsel has argued that the complainant was surprised to see that OP number 1 had charged Rs.2990/- for one waist coat bearing serial number 0002930471004 whereas the product was bearing the tag with same serial number for a price of Rs.2590/- including all taxes meaning thereby the complainant was charged Rs.400/- in excess for the product in question. The learned counsel has further contended that though he requested OP number 1 to refund the amount of Rs.400/- so charged in excess for the waist coat, but the OP flatly refused to do so, as such, the complainant has sought compensation for mental tension and harassment.

6.           On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the said product for Rs.2990/-, but charging of any excess amount of Rs.400/- is denied. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Ops that the difference in the price was due to a manual error and the price on the bill/system is always correct.  The complainant being aware that the price of the said waist coat was Rs.2990/- and accordingly agreed to purchase the said waist coat.    It has been stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

7.           The present case is of charging of Rs.400/- in excess for the purchase of a product by the complainant from the OP number 1  meaning thereby the Ops charged Rs.400/- in excess than the price mentioned on the tag.   Ex.C-2 is the copy of tax invoice dated 25.12.2021 for Rs.20,970/- including the price of waist coat bearing serial/code number 0002930471004 as Rs.2990/- and Ex.C-3 is the copy of same article showing price as Rs.2590/-.  Ex.C-5 is the copy of the tag showing its price to be Rs.2590/- and further to support such a contention, the complainant has produced his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, in which it has been clearly mentioned that the OP number 1 charged Rs.400/- in excess.   On the other hand, no such documentary evidence has been filed by  OP number 1 that the price of the product was Rs.2990/- as charged by OP number 1 from the complainant. Though the learned counsel for OP number 1 has contended vehemently that the price has been charged rightly from the complainant, but we are unable to accept such a contention of learned counsel for OP number 1, more so when the excess charging of Rs.400/- from the complainant than that of the price mentioned on the tag of the product has been clearly established on record by producing cogent and reliable evidence by the complainant.  As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP number 1.

8.           As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to refund to the complainant the excess amount of Rs.400/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of payment/deposit i.e. 25.12.2021 till realization.  We further direct OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

9.           Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.    

                                Pronounced.

 

                                June 22, 2022.