Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/111/2022

Ran Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Patanjali Ayurved Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sukhwant Singh

16 Dec 2024

ORDER

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Charkhi Dadri.

 

                             Complaint No. 111 of 2022

                                                                               Date of Instt. 02.05.2022

                                        Date of Decision:-16.12.2024   

Ran Singh son of Umed Singh R/o Village Birohar, Tehsil Matanhail, District Jhajjar.

          …Complainant.

 

Versus

1. The Manager, Patangali Ayurved Ltd., Patanjali Food and Herbal Park, Village Padartha, Laksar Road, Haridwar-249404 (Uttarakhand)
2. Patanjali Mega Store, Behind the District Courts building Charkhi Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri- Haryana through its Proprietor.
3. PAAYSK 1-4-18 to NOW (2018-19) Near Bada Shiv Mandir, Rohtak Chowk, Charkhi Dadri, through its proprietor.

 

…Opposite parties.

                                Complaint under the Consumer   Protection Act

 

Before:-         Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal….……………………..President

                       (Proceeded under Section 64 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Argued by:-   Sh. Sukhwant Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. G.L.Gupta, Adv. for opposite parties

                         

ORDER

                        Brief facts of the present complaint, according to the complainant, are that on 18.11.2019 the complainant purchased some domestic items such as pulses (Dal) and Biscuits and washing powder etc. from Patanjali Mega Store. The print rat of 500gm pouch of mix Dal is maxium Rs.45/- which is written clearly on the pouch of mix dal. After purchasing the pouch the complainant noticed that shopkeeper  has charged the rate of that pouch  Rs.56/- not the print rate  Rs.45/-. The OP no.2 issued the bill by the name PAAYSK 1-4-18 to NOW (2018-19) Near Bada Shiv Mandir, Rohtak Chowk, Charkhi Dadri, which is wrong and illegal. BCS should have to issue that bill by the name of his shop ‘Patanjali Mega Store’. It is clear that OP no.2 is cheating the general public at large by charging the more price then the print maximum price. Besides this  the OPs are cheating the public by offering the discount of 10% on all the Patanjali products which is fake and in reality no any discount is given to the customers. It amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complainant has come to this Commission and filed the present complaint with the prayer to direct the OPs to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- for cheating  and fake offering of discount and as compensation for deficiency in service, physical and mental harassment etc. and litigation expenses Rs.25,000/-.Any other relief which the Hon’ble Commission deem fit and proper may also be granted.

 2.            Upon notice, the OP no.1 appeared and filed written statement. The OP no.1 averred that the mix dal 500gram packet is shown as retail price Rs.56/- on the packet. Apart from this , in the tax invoice-5361945396 issued by Patanjali Ayurveda Ltd. the price of mix dal 500 gram  at serial number 75 of the goods list   has been recorded as Rs.56/-. If the complaiant has purchased 500 gram mix dal packet from some other place, then the OPs are not bound by it because this type of dal is sold at many places. It is averred that OP no.1 was informed by OP no.2&3 that the OP No.2&3 have never charged more than the price mentioned on the goods and apart from the false complaint, no other customer  has lodged any complaint against  OP no.2&3 till date. As such, it is averred that there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1 and accordingly, dismissal of complaint against respondent No. 1 has been sought.

                        The OP no.2&3 appeared and filed written statement that the stock of 500 gram mix dal had come to the OP no.2&3 on15.11.2019 in which the price of 500 gram mixed dal packet is shown as Rs.56/- and from this stock, 500 gram mixed dal packet was sold on  to the complainant  on 18.11.2019 and the bill was issued  to the complainant which is correct. If the complainant has purchased 500 gram mix dal packet from some other place, then the OPs are not bound by it because this type of dal is sold at many places. The OP no.2&3 issued a bill In the name of PAAYSK 1-4-18 to Now (2018-19). PAAYSK means Patanjali Arogya  Avam Yog Sadhna Kendra and the Patanjali Mega Store is a Brand name. The answering OP have not done any kind of cheating, rather the complainant is harassing the OPs illegally by making baseless allegations and accordingly, dismissal of complaint against respondent No. 2&3 has been sought.

3.                     The complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. CW1/A, and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence on 21.08.2023.

                        On the other hand, the Sh. Randhir Singh tendered into evidence affidavit RW-1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed the evidence on 21.05.2024.

                        Sh. G.L.Gupta, has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and ducment Ex.R6 and closed the evidence on 18.07.2024

4.             I have heard the arguments of learned counsel of both the parties and have gone through the documents so placed on record by both the parties very carefully and minutely.
5.             After hearing the rival contentions raised  on behalf of both the parties and have perused the entire record of the file, find that as per Ex.C1 annexed by the complainant in which he claimed that Rs.56/- was charged by the OPs for item no.3 i.e. 500gm mix Dal. To prove his claim he has exhibited C2 photocopy of wrapper of the item claimed by him but without printed MRP and also not visible. The second question is raised by the complainant that OPs was claiming 10% discount on every item. Although, the complainant has failed to prove this fact on record by leading any cogent or convincing evidence. As per the 3^rd objection raised by the complainant regarding the issue bill on wrong title shop name for which it is found by this Commission that OP no.2 issued the bill in the name of OP no.3 which is clear cut mal-trade practice on the part of OPs and caused playing fraud and cheating with the innocent buyer which can create problem in future to resolve his any genuine problem and to execute the directions being wrong address.
6.             In this way I have the considered view that the OPs found to do the illegal practice by selling the goods in the name of another shop. By caused physical and mental harassment to the complainant which liable to compensate to him.
7.             In view of facts and circumstances of the present case and from the aforesaid observations, the present complaint stands partly allowed and complainant is entitled to relief by OPs which is directed as under:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) to the complainant as compensation and for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses.

The above order be complied within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the said amount will carry 12% interest p.a. paid for the delayed period.

8.                     If the order of this Commission is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to file execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the defaulting party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which shall not less than one month, but which may extend to three years or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees, but which may extend to Rs. one lac or with both. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rules and this order be promptly uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.