DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 97 of 22.3.2018

                                      Decided on:   3.12.2020

Kewal Bansal aged 48 years s/o Roop Chand resident of Partap Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Big Bazar (Future Retail Ltd.) North Zone Office Future Retail Office, 3^rd Floor, Plot No.82, Sector 32, near NIIT Corp. Office, Gurgaon-122001(Haryana) through its Managing Director.
2. Big Bazar (Future Retail Ltd.) Omaxe Mall, Mall Road, Patiala through its Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Kewal Bansal, complainant in person.

                                      Sh.M.P.S.Sahi,counsel for OPs.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Kewal Bansal (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Big Bazar and anr. (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased Lalaji Moong Punjabi Papad alongwith other items from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 18.2.2018 and on the bill it is specifically mentioned that “Net amount is inclusive of all taxes, total saving and to discount over MRP and additional promotions”. It is averred that the OPs charged Rs.68/- after discount of Rs.6.80 and net payable amount was Rs.61.20 for Moong Punjabi Papad of 200 gm. It is further averred that the OPs  charged excess amount of Rs.9/- over and above the actual price of Lalaji Moong Punjabi Papad 200 gm as the actual MRP of this item is Rs.58/- and OP charged Rs.68/- after 10% discount OP charged Rs.61.20 instead of Rs.52.20 (Rs.58/- - club card discount 10%=52.20). It is averred that when the complainant approached OPs and complained about it, OPs’ misbehaved with him and refused to refund the excess amount. The complainant got sent legal notice dated 21.2.2018 to the OPs, which was duly served but they did not pay any heed to the legal notice. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
3. On this back ground of the facts the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.9/-; to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- and also to pay Rs.11000/-as costs of legal expenses.
4. On notice, OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has created a false story; that the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious.
5. On merits, it is stated to be matter of record that the complainant purchased the alleged item from OP No.2 on 18.2.2018. It is submitted that the OPs are providing best services and even giving discounts and schemes to its privileged customers. It is further submitted that prices  of the goods are feeded in computer systems which are scanned at the time of billing vide their bar code and if any mistake occurred due to some technical problem, the OPs correct it when it come to their notice. The OPs have not charged any excess amount from the complainant. There is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In evidence the complainant his affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs made statement that the written reply filed on behalf of OPs on 5.7.2018 be read as evidence on behalf of the OPs.
8. We have heard the complainant, the ld. counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The complainant has argued that the OPs charged more Rs.3.37 of Lalaji Moong Dal Papad.He further argued that as per Ex.C3, the MRP was Rs.58/- and the OPs charged Rs.61.20 and thus complaint be allowed.
10. The ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the complaint  is false and frivolous and that complainant has filed a false complaint and the same be dismissed.
11. Complainant has filed this complaint on the allegation that OP has charged Rs.3.31 in excess of Moong Dal Papad for Rs.61.20 as per bill,Ex.C1 of 18.2.2018. Ex.C3 is the rate of Moog Dal Papad wherein MRP of Rs.58/- inclusive of all taxes has been mentioned. So it is clear that OPs have charged Rs.3.20 more from the complainant despite the fact that net price of Moong Dal Papad was Rs.58/-.
12. In view of our above discussion, the complaint stands allowed and the OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.3.20, the excess price charged from the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of purchase till final payment and also to pay Rs.500/- as costs of the complaint, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 3.12.2020      

                                       Vinod Kumar Gulati             Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                 Member                                    President