Uttar Pradesh



Arun Kumar Singh - Complainant(s)


Spencer's Retail Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Aug 2015


Complaint Case No. CC/629/2013
1. Arun Kumar Singh
1. Spencer's Retail Ltd.
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:


CASE No.629 of 2013

      Sri Arun Kumar Singh,

      R/o Sector-I, C-88, Aliganj,

      Police Station-Aliganj,




                1.  M/s Spencers Hyper Fun Republic Mall,

                    Ram Manohar Lohia Path,

                    Opposite Prayatan Bhawan, Gomti Nagar,



               2. Spencer’s Retail Ltd.,

                   Duncan House, 1st Floor,

                   31, Netaji Subhas Road,


                                                                               .......Opp. Parties


Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.



This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for payment of Rs.50,000.00.

          The case in brief of the Complainant is that he had purchased domestic articles from the shop of OP on 24.03.2013 at 5.35 pm and some items have been purchased through the shop. The Complainant made payment of the amount as per instruction by the accountant of the said shop but the Complainant found that some excess charge has been taken by the accountant. The Complainant approached the accountant of the said shop and requested to make repayment of excess charges but the accountant of OPs refused to take any action. Subsequently the Complainant sent notice to the OP and OP accepted the excess payment of Rs.2.00 and bearer cheque was sent to the Complainant on 30.05.2013. The OPs have also accepted the guilt caused due to error in the computer system. The action of OPs is against the Consumer


Protection Act, 1986 which comes in the ambit of Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act as charging the excess payment is unfair trade practice, hence this complaint.

          The OPs have filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that the OPs, from the very inception, are willing and ready to return the excess amount of Rs.2.00 to the Complainant which is admitted by the Complainant but it is the Complainant who refused to receive the excess amount and tried to extract huge money from OPs. The OPs had sent Rs.2.00 through cheque No.550425 dated 16.05.2013 drawn on HDFC bank in favour of Complainant and the same is accepted by Complainant which is evident from the act of the Complainant as Complainant did not return the cheque and it is still with Complainant. It is denied that the Complainant found that he had been charged in excess by accountant, rather the true story is that the accountant noticed computers error and offered Complainant to return the Rs.2.00 but Complainant refused to receive the same and asked Rs.50,000.00. On refusal of OPs to satisfy exorbitant demand of Complainant he threatened to go to court of law. The Complainant did not approach the accountant of OPs to refund the excess amount but the accountant noticed computer error and offered Complainant to return Rs.2.00 but Complainant refused to receive the same. The OPs never accepted any guilt. The OPs did not commit any unfair trade practice. The excess pricing was due to computer system error and same instantly was noticed by accountant. The Complainant did not suffer any physical or mental loss. There is no cause of action in favour of Complainant and against the OPs as the OPs were always willing and ready to make good of the excess amount which was transferred due to unintentional mechanical error. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The complaint deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.



          The Complainant has filed his affidavit with 3 papers. The Complainant has filed rejoinder affidavit with 1 paper. The OP No.1 and 2 have filed an affidavit of Sri Amendra Kumar, Legal Executive, Spencer’s Retail Ltd. with 1 paper.

          Heard Counsel for the Complainant but none appeared to argue the case from the side of the OPs. Perused the entire record.

          Now, in this case, it is to be seen as to whether the OPs charged Rs.2.00 in excess from the Complainant when he purchased articles from the shop of OPs and when the Complainant asked the accountant to repay the excess amount charged then he refused to take any action and whether the act of the OPs amounted to unfair trade practice or not.

          It is not disputed that the Complainant purchased certain articles from the shop of OP No.1 where Rs.2.00 were charged in excess by the OPs. According to the OPs the accountant of the OPs were called upon to rectify the wrong and repay the excess payment taken by the accountant to the Complainant. It is noticeable that when the Complainant sent notice to the OPs then they accepted the guilt and thereafter cheque for Rs.2.00 was sent to the Complainant. Now, here the question, as mentioned above, involved is whether the excess payment charged by the OPs is unfair trade practice or not. It is apparent from the circumstances of the case that the OPs charged Rs.2.00 extra from the Complainant and when the matter was brought to the notice to the accountant of the OPs’, then he did not repay the amount, therefore there is clear cut unfair trade practice as also deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. This sort of practice where a petty amount is charged in excess by the vendors such as Spencer Retail Ltd. etc. and this amount takes the shape of an astronomical figure, when it is done with the millions of the customers all over the country as according to them this is a computer generated mistake and the computer network is spread all over the country and they



know that for such petty amount no person normally raises his voice, therefore this charging of Rs.2.00 in excess of what the consumer was required to pay is a serious unfair trade practice as also deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to not only get back Rs.2.00 with interest but also to get compensation for the harassment caused to him. He is also entitled to the cost of the litigation.

          Here a word of praise is necessary for the Complainant as it is a glaring example where the Complainant chooses to file a case in the Consumer Forum for such a petty amount refusing to accept the cheque for Rs.2.00 from the OPs, therefore the effort on the part of the Complainant is laudable.


          The complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.2.00 (Rupees Two Only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of the case till the final payment is made to the Complainant.

          The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand only) as the cost of the litigation to the Complainant. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.


     (Anju Awasthy)                                    (Vijai Varma)

          Member                                                   President    

Dated:   11  August, 2015

[HON'BLE MR. Vijai Varma]
[HON'BLE MRS. Anju Awasthy]

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.