State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Easy Day, Bharti Retai Ltd. vs Sumit Singla on 16 March, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 744 of 2013
Date of institution : 09.07.2013
Date of decision : 16.03.2015
1. Easy Day, Bharti Retail Ltd., Nirankari Bhawan, Opp.
Ripudaman Nabha, District Patiala (Pb. 144624) through its
Manager.
2. Easy Day, Orchid Centre, 1st Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector-
53, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Director.
.......Appellants-Opposite Parties
Versus
Sumit Singla son of Parshotam Dass R/o House No.49, Braham
Kumariya Street, Basantpura Mohalla, Cinema Road, Nabha, District
Patiala.
........Respondent-Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
2.1.2013 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 2.1.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by Sumit Singla, respondent- complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 First Appeal No.744 of 2013. 2 (in short, "the Act") was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- on account of the adoption of unfair trade practice and a sum of Rs.15,000/-, on account of harassment and mental agony experienced by the complainant, which was inclusive of the costs of the complaint. Further direction was issued for refunding the sum of Rs.9/- charged in excess by the opposite parties.
2. The complainant alleged, in his complaint, that on 11.6.2012 he purchased five items from opposite party No.1-Store at Nabha, including Protinex. The price of the Protinex mentioned in the Invoice was Rs.177/-. When he came back to his house, he noticed that the MRP of the Protinex was mentioned on the box as Rs.168/- and, as such, the opposite parties charged Rs.9/- in excess. He approached that opposite party and told him about the mal-practice and unfair trade practice being adopted by it for charging Rs.9/- in excess but no attention was paid by that opposite party and rather unwanted words were used for him. Then he approached opposite party No.2 on the phone and disclosed the incident to it and to look into the matter but all in vain. He is a regular customer of the opposite parties and purchases items worth Rs.8,000.00/Rs.10,000.00 every month. If there is so much difference in the price of one item, then there is likelihood of difference in other items also. This act on the part of the opposite parties amounts to mal-practice in trade and unfair trade practice; as a result of which he suffered harassment, mental pain and agony, for which he is entitled to Rs.50,000/-, as compensation. He claimed First Appeal No.744 of 2013. 3 Rs.10,000/-, as costs of litigation and Rs.4,00,000/-, as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed joint written reply before the District Forum. In the written reply they denied the allegations as made in the complaint and pleaded that the MRP of the Protinex product sold by them is Rs.177/- and that rate list is updated as and when the new stock is received. The alleged box with less MRP manufactured in July 2011 was never sold by them to the complainant. They believed in the motto "Being the society, we serve" and that "The Consumer is King". They never adopted any such unfair trade practice nor they were deficient in service. The complainant has not approached the District Forum with clean hands and the complaint filed by him is based upon wrong and incorrect facts. The complaint is misconceived, concocted, without any reason and is abuse of the process of law and misuse of the provisions of the Act. They prayed for the dismissal thereof; being false and frivolous.
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that from the evidence, so produced before the District First Appeal No.744 of 2013. 4 Forum, it cannot be concluded that the box of Protinex with the printed MRP of Rs.168/- was sold by them to the complainant. Whenever the new rate is received, the MRP is also changed. There was no such stock of the Protinex with them with the printed MRP of Rs.168/- in the month of July 2011 and, as such, there was no question of the sale thereof to the complainant. He further submitted that even if this Commission comes to the conclusion that the said box of Protinex was sold by the opposite parties to the complainant at a price in excess of the MRP mentioned thereon, even then the compensation, so awarded by the District Forum, is on the higher side. For just a difference of Rs.9/-, compensation of Rs.50,000/- could not have been awarded and the same is liable to be reduced.
7. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that correct findings were recorded by the District Forum after taking into consideration the evidence produced by both the parties. There is no ground for upsetting the well reasoned order of the District Forum.
8. The complainant in support of the allegations made in the complaint proved on record his affidavit Ex.C-1. In that affidavit he deposed in detail about each and every fact so pleaded in the complaint. His deposition is further corroborated by the Retail Invoice, Ex.C-2, in which the box of Protinex is mentioned along with the price which was so charged from him. He also proved on record another Retail Invoice dated 23.6.2012, Ex.C6, vide which he again purchased one box of Protinex for a price of Rs.330/-. First Appeal No.744 of 2013. 5
9. On the other hand, the opposite parties relied upon the affidavit of Rakesh Kumar, Store Manager, Ex.R-1. That Store Manager deposed that the contentions made in the complaint are false and that the Protinex product sold by the opposite parties was of MRP of Rs.177/- and the rate list was updated whenever there was a new stock.
10. In order to appreciate the evidence produced by both the sides the complainant was asked to produce the boxes of the Protinex, so purchased by him, vide the above said two Retail Invoices, though he had proved the photographs thereof before the District Forum as Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-9. The product code numbers mentioned thereon were compared with the numbers as mentioned in the Retail Invoices and those duly matched. From the evidence, it becomes very much clear that the boxes of Protinex, so produced before us, were the same which were purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1. On the small box the MRP was mentioned as Rs.168/-, whereas the opposite parties charged Rs.177/-. On the other box, the MRP was mentioned as Rs.311/- but the opposite parties charged Rs.330/-. This charging of the price in excess of the MRP mentioned on the boxes and in the absence of the proving of the rate list by the opposite parties clearly amounts to unfair trade practice on their part. Correct finding was recorded by the District Forum to that effect against the opposite parties and the same is hereby upheld.
11. It came out during the arguments of the learned counsel for the opposite parties itself that the prices are fed in the computer and First Appeal No.744 of 2013. 6 thereafter the Retail Invoice is generated on the basis of the Product Code Number. If that is the position, the opposite parties have been charging the price in excess of the MRP from the other customers also. The District Forum did not err while assessing the compensation to the tune of Rs.35,000/- for that unfair trade practice. However, the compensation assessed by it at Rs.15,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant is on the higher side, as he was charged only Rs.30/- in excess. There should have been some proportion of the amounts, so charged in excess and that compensation. No doubt, that amount is inclusive of the cost but still the same is on the higher side. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the said amount is reduced to Rs.8,000/-.
12. The said unfair trade practice was adopted by the opposite parties not only qua the complainant but the other customers also. It was never the intention of the Legislation, while enacting the Act, that consumer should get enriched for unfair trade practice on the part of the trader. That compensation of Rs.35,000/- should go for the welfare of the consumers and the same is not for enriching the complainant. That amount shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Free Legal Aid Fund of the District Forum.
13. In view of our above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. While modifying the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.8,000/-, as compensation and costs of litigation to the complainant and to deposit Rs.35,000/- in the Consumer Free Legal Aid Fund of the District Forum within 30 days First Appeal No.744 of 2013. 7 of the receipt of the copy of the order and failing that both the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint itself till the payment/deposit of those amounts.
14. The appellants/opposite parties deposited the sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal on 9.7.2013. Out of this, the sum of Rs.8,000/- shall be remitted to the respondent- complainant and the rest of the amount along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted to the District Forum, Patiala by the registry by way of crossed cheques/demand drafts after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties.
15. The arguments in this case were heard on 11.3.2015 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) March 16, 2015 MEMBER Bansal First Appeal No.744 of 2013. 8