Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 155.
Instituted on : 06.03.2009.
Decided on : 15.07.2009.
Sushil Kumar son of Shri Krishan Lal resident of House No.492/22, Durga Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. M/s Shoe Centre, 3, Palika Bazaar, Through its Proprietor.
2. Liberty Shoe Ltd., Liberty Road, Karnal-132001 through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/person.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAITN U/S 12 OF CONCUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH. JOGINDER SINGH JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
SMT. MEENA KUMARI, MEMBER.
SH. VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Yogender Dalal, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
JOGINDER SINGH JAKHAR, PRESIDENT:
According to the complainant on dated 10.2.09 he purchased two pairs of shoes of Liberty Mark, from which one was of the Windsor and opposite party no.1 charged Rs.1870/- for the same and Rs.1530/- for another pair, totaling Rs.3400/- and charged Rs.3430/- from the complainant. It is further submitted that opposite party no.2 is the manufacturer and opposite party no.1 is the dealer of the shoes. At the time of selling the said shoes, opposite party given discount on the Windsor pair of shoes and showed the label of price on the box showing price of Rs.2199/- and after deducting discount opposite party charged Rs.1870/- from the complainant but later on complainant came to know that the label of price inside the shoes seems the Rs.1799/- which was rubbed by the opposite party no.1 and on the box opposite party has affixed the price slip as per his own choice. It is further submitted that opposite party ought to have given discount on Rs.1799/- whereas by playing a fraud opposite party has given discount on Rs.2199/- and has charged Rs.400/- excess from the complainant. Complainant requested the opposite party no.1 to refund the price of shoes but to no effect. The act and conduct of the opposite parties by charging the excess price from the complainant as well as from the other customers by affixing the excess price slip on the box of shoes in arbitrary manner is illegal, liable as unfair trade practice and also amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint with prayer to direct the opposite parties to receive back the pair of shoes and to refund the price of Rs.1870/- and to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and harassment alongwith litigation expenses to the complainant.
Notice sent to opposite party no.2 received back served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.4.09. Opposite party no.1 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that it is admitted that opposite party no.2 is the manufacturer of the Shoe namely Windsor. So far as the discount is concerned it depends from article to article and it is not a universal policy to grant discount on every article. Percentage of discount is also the right of the respondent. The actual rate of the article is always displayed on the label and the rate of the article always determined by the Company and the company can reduce or increase the rates as per rules and policies. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party no.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.P1, documents Ex.P2 and closed his evidence.
On the other hand, opposite party no.1 did not tender any evidence and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 9.7.09.
We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the evidence and other material aspect of the case very carefully.
After going through the file and hearing the parties we have observed that it is not disputed that as per receipt Ex.P2 dated 10.02.2009 complainant had purchased two pairs of shoes for a consideration of Rs.1870/- and Rs.1590/-. It is also observed that on one of the pair namely Windsor, the price on the box was shown Rs.2199/- and on the shoes it was Rs.1799/- whereas the opposite party no.1 after giving the discount on Rs.2199/-, charged Rs.1870/- from the complainant.
After going through the file and hearing ld. Counsel for the complainant we are of the considered view that the discount if any should have been given on the actual price of shoes which was on the label affixed on shoes i.e. Rs.1799/- but the opposite party charged on the basis of Rs.2199/- price given on the box and have charged Rs.400/- excess from the complainant. Moreover, opposite party has not placed on file any document to prove that at the time of sale of alleged shoes, what was the actual rate of shoes as per the price list of company. Hence the charging of excess price from the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. In this regard as per the authority reported in II (2007) CPJ 96 (SC) New Delhi titled as Zaika Bazar vs. Hemant Goel it has held that: “ Charging higher price than MRP- Three times MRP charged for mineral water bottle served with dinner- Forum allowed complaint-Hence appeal- Sale of water in loose by serving in glasses cannot dilute offence of deficiency in service- Words “Maximum” and “Retail” in MRP are core of price tag and prescribe maximum limit of pricing-Orders of Forum upheld-Punitive damages imposed”, as per the authority reported in III (2006) CPJ 12 (SC) New Delhi titled as Satyam Cineplexes Vs. Mark Paul it has held that: “Charging of Rs.40/- for water bottle having MRP Rs.12- Contention of O.P., price charged not only for water but for other services provided in cineplex, not acceptable-Any trader whether in hotel/restaurant premises or seven star or five star hotel, PVRs or cinema or at any other place, has no right to charge more price than printed- O.P. indulged in unfair trade practice despite having been warned earlier- liable to heavy punitive damages-Rs.50,000/- to be deposited in Consumer Welfare fund besides Rs.5,000 compensation to complainant. Moreover, as per the authority reported in 2007(1) CLT 40 NC (New Delhi) titled as Jagannadhan Vs. S. Muralidharan and others it has held that: Deficiency in service- State Commission rightly awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- instead of interest.
Keeping in view the above referred case laws which are applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case we have come to the conclusion that complaint is tenable and accordingly, we hereby allow the complaint with direction to the opposite party no.1 to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant maximum within one month from passing of this order.
Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs and also sent to opposite parties free of costs.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open court:
15.07.2009.
………………………….
Joginder Singh Jakhar.
…………………………
Meena Kumari, Member.
…………………………
Virendra Kumar Jain, Member.
vs
Tags: Shoe Centre