The brief history of the case of the complainant is that she purchased 3 pairs of Shoe from the OP for Rs.2080/- vide Retail Invoice No.277 dt.03.01.2016 out of which the price of TSPL Sport Shoe of Sl. No.2 was Ra.1080/- as per bill.  It is submitted that after one hour of said purchase, the complainant noticed that the OP has taken Rs.1080/- for TSPL Sport Shoe whereas the price of the shoe is Rs.499/- as has been written on the shoe itself.  The complainant immediately rushed to the shop of the OP and showing the price written in the shoe, requested the OP to return the excess amount of Rs.581/- but the OP denied to return the amount stating that he has taken the correct amount. The OP also stated that this is China made shoe and he has purchased it on high price. When the complainant requested the OP to take back the shoe and refund its price, the OP stated that goods once sold cannot be taken back.  The complainant further alleges about the shoe at Sl. No.1 of the retail invoice to which the OP has taken Rs.700/- but the price so taken has nowhere mentioned.  With these and other submissions, alleging restrictive and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, she has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to refund Rs.581/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP on receipt of notice appeared before the Forum with a time petition on 09.02.2016.  Time was allowed in favour of the OP for filing of counter on 11.03.16.  There after the OP in spite of repeated adjournments did not file counter and remained absent in the proceeding.  Hence he was proceeded exparte on 28.03.2016.  The complainant has filed certain documents in support of her case.  Heard from her at length and perused the materials available on record.

3.                     In this case purchase of 3 pairs of shoe by the complainant from OP vide invoice No.277 dt.03.01.2016 for Rs.2080/- is duly supported by original Retail Invoice which clearly shows the alleged transaction in between the complainant and OP.  Perused the retail invoice and found that the complainant has purchased 3 pairs of shoe on payment of Rs.2080/-.  The case of the complainant is that out of 3 pairs, the OP has taken Rs.1080/- for shoe at Sl. No.2 against the written price of Rs.499/- as she found after one hour of purchase.  As per the complainant, she approached the OP and enquired the circumstances in which the OP has charged and taken Rs.1080/- instead of written price of Rs.499/- and the complainant has also requested the to return the excess price taken but the OP denied to return the excess price stating that he has taken correct amount.  The OP has also taken plea that the alleged shoe is made in China and for this type of shoe the retailer is to fix its price for sale to the customer.  The request of the complainant for return of the shoe was also turned down by the OP.

4.                     The complainant had exhibited the shoes in question before us to see the price written on the shoe itself.  Inspected the shoe and found that Rs.499/- has been written on the shoe where as the OP has charged and taken Rs.1080/- through retail invoice for the said shoe.  Further it is seen that for the shoe at Sl. No.1 of the invoice, the OP has charged Rs.700/- through invoice whereas no price has been mentioned either on the shoe or on its container.  We also do not understand as to how the OP has charged Rs.700/- on its own accord for the said shoe when no price has been mentioned.

5.                     In absence of counter and participation in the proceeding by the OP we lost opportunity to know anything from him and hence the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged.  It is clearly evident that the OP has charged and taken Rs.1080/- instead of written price of Rs.499/- in case of shoe at Sl. No.2 of the invoice.  Market is very competitive now a day.  In a competitive market, when the sellers are in a race to sell the products to the customers less than the written price, this type of business tactic adopted by OP is quite unfortunate.  By doing this the OP materially misleads the complainant concerning price at which it was to be sold.  The retail price written on the shoe includes the profit of the seller and a seller in no circumstances is allowed to charge more than the written price.  In our opinion by taking Rs.581/- over and above the written price on the shoe, the OP has adopted unfair trade practice.  Further in case of the shoe at Sl. No.1 of the invoice where no price is quoted, the OP has taken Rs.700/- which also amounts unfair trade practice.

6.                     The complainant stated that she wanted to return the shoe due to excess price taken by the OP but the OP did not allow her to return the shoes.  This action of the OP clearly leads to restrictive trade practice.

7.                     From the above facts and circumstances, it was ascertained that the OP has taken excess amount of Rs.581/- in case of shoe at Sl. No.2 to which the OP is liable to return to the complainant with due interest.  For such unfairness and restrictive practices of the OP, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony for which she is entitled for some compensation and cost of this litigation.  Considering the sufferings, we feel that a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

8.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP is directed to refund Rs.581/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 03.01.2016 and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and costs  to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)