DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 273 of 23.7.2018

                                      Decided on:   6.8.2021

Jagdish Singh son of Sh. Jagtar Singh, resident of village seel, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Reliance Retail Limited, Reliance Market, Khewat No.3, Khatauni No.6, Village Bahadurgarh, Patiala-Rajpura Road, District Patiala through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Reliance Retail Limited, Registered Office:3^rd Floor, Court House, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-400 002

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY              

                                      None for the complainant.

                                      Sh.Sanjay Bharaj, counsel for OPs.                    

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER, PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Jagdish Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Reliance Retail Limited (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case  are that the complainant purchased RS MG North 1 KG mango pickle alongwith other items from OP No.1 on 17.5.2018 and OP No.1 charged Rs.139/- for RS MG North 1 KG mango pickle i.e. Rs.50/- in excess as the MRP of 1 KG mango pickle was Rs.95/- i.e. Rs.145-50=95/-. As such the OPs breached the trust of the complainant. The complainant approached the OP No.1 in this regard but they misbehaved with the complainant. The complainant got sent legal notice dated 1.6.2018 upon the OPs which was received by them but they did not bother to file any reply. 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. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to refund the excess amount of Rs.50/- charged from him; to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- and also to pay Rs.11000/-as costs of the complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply .In the preliminary objections, it is submitted that the OP No.1 is a store being operated by Reliance Retail Limited. It is further submitted that the complainant had purchased the products from the OP No.1.But during the course of billing of the product alongwith other products purchased by the complainant, due to certain barcode error, the billing computer erred in capturing the value of the said product as a result of which the excess amount erroneously reflected in the bill, which was agreed to be deducted from the bill amount and the OP was ready to refund the same to the complainant but the complainant refused to accept the same. There is thus no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the complaint is totally false. It is further submitted that the error is unintentional. The complaint of the complainant is not tenable and is thus liable to be dismissed
4. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that the complainant has purchased certain items from the store of the OPs. Thereafter the OPs reiterated the facts as raised in the preliminary objections which are not repeated for the sake of brevity. After denying all other averments the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In support of the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit; Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Bhupinder Singh, Store Manager and closed the evidence.
7. None has appeared on behalf of the complainant. We have heard the ld. counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. The case of the complainant is that he has purchased RS MG North 1KG mango pickle alongwith other items from OP No.1 on 17.5.2018 and OP No.1 charged Rs.139/- for the same .But it is stated that the OPs have charged more amount from him.
9. To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and has deposed as per his complaint, Ex.C1 is the receipt of Reliance Retail Limited, Ex.C2 is the legal notice, Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 postal receipts, Ex.C5 is the receipt of Mango pickle which was purchased by the complainant, in which it is mentioned that Rs.50/- is off.
10. On the other hand Sh.Bhupinder Singh has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written version but he has not able to rebut Ex.C5 produced by the complainant wherein it is mentioned that Rs.50/- off from the MRP. So it is clear that the OP No.1 has charged Rs.50/- more from the complainant on 17.5.2018.There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
11. So  due to our above discussion the complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to refund Rs.50/- charged in excess from the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from 17.5.2018 till its payment .The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.500/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs of litigation.      

Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:6.8.2021.        

                             Vinod Kumar Gulati             Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President