Complainant:



Mr. Durga Mohan

S/o Late Sri. Bhavaneshwar

Aged about 30 years

No.397, 3rd Main

Anand Nagar

Bangalore-24






/vs/







Opposite Parties:





1. M/s. Smart Retail Pvt. Ltd.,

Rukmini Plaza

No.1047, 3rd Floor

20th Main, 5th Block

Rajajinagar

Bangalore-560 066

R/by its Managing Director



2. M/s. Smart Retail Pvt. Ltd.,

No.58, TP Venugopal Pvt

Layout, Ananda Nagar

Bangalore-560 036

R/by its Manager


O R D E R

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties (Ops in short) to declare about unfair trade practice of the Op, compensation of Rs.100 lakh, an apology letter with costs and for such other reliefs.



The brief facts of the case are that the Ops are Multi National Company having a world wide distribution and wholesaler of Supermarket supplies, food & beverages, gift articles etc., and the Op attracted the complainant and other customers that they are known for quality goods and are having main market in Southeast Asia, and having total annual sales volume US $ 1 million – US$ 2.5 million, which ensures their quality market penetration etc.,

The complainant being one of the regular customer and used to essential commodities like sugar, rice etc., from the second Op. The 2nd Op is located near to the residence of the complainant and complainant used to purchase the goods quite often form the OP. On few occasions the complainant noticed that the Op was indulged in charging Rs.2 to 3 excess on the packed goods, and upon the complaint of the complainant the 2nd Op used to rectify their said unfair practice on the ground that the excess amount was due to wrong typing while uploading the information to the computer. Inspite of such complaints the Op never bothered to stop such unfair trade practices.



On 22/11/2008, the complainant had some important guests at home as his wife had delivered a baby, and he approached the second OP at around 7’ O clock in the evening, to buy certain groceries including packed sugar. The complainant purchased 24 items/Qty of foodstuff and the 2nd Op demanded a sum of Rs.1006.03 which was duly paid by the complainant.

The complainant after reaching home while cross checking the said purchased items, he was shocked, surprised and under went severe metal agony as the 2nd Op had charged almost three times excess money to one Kilo packed Sugar i.e Rs.85/- per kilo, where in the actual price printed on the said sugar packet was only a sum of Rs.23/- per kilo and further the OP had specifically mentioned in the printed slip on the pack of sugar that the said price is inclusive of all taxes. But when the said final bill generated by the Op showed that the Op had charged additional VAT/Tax at 4.00% and 12.50% on the goods to the complainant. The Op had charged taxes twice to the complainant, without any basis.



Immediately the complainant rushed to the Op to enquire, but the Op gave an evasive answer to the complainant and nobody was ready to speak to the complainant, Op only informed that the concerned person is not available and since they are closing the shop for the day, they can get back to the complainant only on the next day. The Op took the telephone number of the complainant and assured the complainant that they will get back to him on the very next day, but on the next day the op did bothered to call back the complainant. Such conduct of Op amounts to unfair practice.

The complainant did not use the said sugar for the purpose for what it was purchased, and after a day the complainant took some time off from office and approached the Op and demanded the Op to explain about the excess amount and also demanded the Op to provide the details of the billing made by the op to all the customers till date on the said sugar. The Op neither bothered to comment on the said unfair trade practice nor gave any information demanded by the complainant and on the contrary gave the same evasive answer to the complainant and asked him to come in the evening i.e., after business hours. The said conduct of the Op is unfair.



The Op is involved in unfair trade practices as stated above and they are charging almost three times of excess amount to the essential commodity like sugar. The sugar being one of the essential commodity the sale of the same will be more and the bill that is being generated by the op will be hardly cross checked by the consumers and the op has taken the undue advantage of the same and involved in said unfair trade practice. The Ops though claiming to be an Multinational company and further claiming to be having a world wide distribution and further spending a huge amount towards the advertisements, are indulged in fooling the consumers, are indulged in charging excess money to the consumers only to maximize their profits which illegal. Hence the complainant approached this forum.



Op appeared through its counsel, filed its version and also gave evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Counsels of both parties submitted their arguments.



It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased some grocery items from the Op2 and paid Rs.1,006.03 to the Op2. It is also an admitted fact that the Op has charged Rs.85/- for 1 Kg. packed sugar instead of Rs.23/- it was mentioned as MRP on the said packet. According to learned counsel for OP it is typographical error and the mistake of Op in printing of Rs.85/- instead of Rs.23/-. The learned counsel for Op further submitted that the complainant was regular customer of Op2 was not having coordinal relationship with the employees of Op2.

He was frequently quarreling always looking forward to prove disrepute to the Ops. According to the learned counsel for complainant even though, it was brought to the knowledge of the OP on the very same day, they have unnecessarily asked the complainant to come on the next day and again in the evening of the next day. The complainant has provided his telephone number to the Op2 and they have assured to call back him soon after the concerned person has come but they never bothered to telephone to the complainant. Learned counsel for complainant further submitted that the complainant sought for the details of the person who purchased the sugar from Op2. Inspite of several request, it has not provide the details.



It is an admitted fact that the OP has collected Rs.85/- instead of 23/- and agreed to return the amount of Rs.62/- in excess collected from the complainant. The point for consideration is whether it was bonafide mistake while mentioning amount in the computer or not? This is money transactions. When person is sitting on the billing computer he has to take all necessary precautions to cross check the MRP and the amount mentioned in the bill. It is common phenomena when several items were purchased, no customer will go in detail each and every item by cross checking the items in the bill. Some will pay the amount soon after the announcement of the amount and thereafter some may cross check in house or some may not cross check. If it is cross checked and found mistake they will enquire with the shops otherwise it will go without notice and will become a profit to the shop owners. When it has brought to the knowledge of the OP in the same evening without any further delay OP should have refunded the excess amount to the complainant. Unnecessarily, Op made the complainant to wonder from house to the shop of the Op2. If the Op2 is aware that the complainant is quarrelling nature, if it was true, the quarrel was for right cause. Under such circumstances, without making any delay, the Op should have refunded the excess amount.

If the complainant has not received the amount it should have send the said amount to the house of the complainant. But no such efforts have been made by the OP. From one customer the Op has collected excess amount of Rs.62/- on one item. Naturally doubt arouse how much it has collected from the other customer with same type of billing. This type of act on the part of the Op definitely an unfair trade practice and amassing wealth with unfair trade practice and such type of practice must be curbed by imposing heavy penalty on such business people because a single person is not affected due to act of the Op but the public at large is affected.


The complainant has filed complaint against two Ops both are branch offices and doing their retail business in different places. Op1 is nothing to do with the transaction that took place between the complainant and Op2. Hence Op1 is not a necessary party in this complaint and it is liable to be dismissed against Op1.


In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Op2. Accordingly, we pass the following order.


O R D E R


Complaint is partly allowed. Complaint against Opposite party No.1 is dismissed and complaint against Opposite party No.2 is allowed.


Acting under Section 14(1) (f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Op2 is directed to discontinue the unfair trade practice,



Op2 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation and out of the said amount Acting under Section 14(1) (d), Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) is to be deposited in this forum towards the punitive damages and Rs.25,000/- is to be paid to the complainant and this amount is to be paid within six weeks from the date of this order.