Shopkeeper Held Liable For Not Returning Rs. 3 And Verbal Abuse, Sambalpur District Commission Orders Rs. 25,000 Compensation

The Sambalpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Dr Ramakanta Satapathy (President) and Sadananda Tripathy (Member) held a Xerox shop owner liable for unfair trade practice for not refunding Rs 3 after the complainant handed him Rs 5, expecting a return of three rupees since the standard rate for a photocopy was Rs 2 per copy. The bench ordered the shop owner to refund Rs 3 in addition to Rs 25,000 as compensation to the complainant.

Brief facts:

On April 28, 2023, Prafulla Kumar Dash (“Complainant”), a senior journalist from Budharaja in Sambalpur, visited the Goyal Printing Zone, a local Xerox shop. He intended to make photocopies and handed over five rupees to the shopkeeper, expecting a return of three rupees. This expectation was based on the prevailing market rate of Rs 2 per copy. However, the shopkeeper not only refused to return the excess amount but also subjected the complainant to verbal abuse.

Despite the complainant's repeated requests, the shopkeeper eventually returned the full amount but insulted him by stating that he had "donated the money to a beggar." Furthermore, the Xerox shop failed to provide a receipt or bill for the services rendered, which the complainant considered an unfair trade practice. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint in the Sambalpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”).

The complainant contended that he visited the Xerox shop with a legitimate expectation of receiving a change for his payment, as per the standard photocopying rate of Rs 2 per copy. He asserted that the shopkeeper not only refused to return the excess amount but also used offensive language towards him. Moreover, the absence of a receipt or bill for the services rendered raised concerns about unfair trade practices. He further argued that these actions by the shopkeeper caused him considerable mental agony, harassment, inconvenience, and financial loss.

The Xerox shop owner failed to submit any response or counter-arguments within the stipulated time. Consequently, there were no contentions presented on his behalf.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission observed that the Xerox shop failed to furnish a receipt or bill for the services rendered. This conspicuous absence of documentation raised pertinent concerns about the transparency, accountability, and adherence to fair trade practices by the establishment. Further, the District Commission observed that the shop had engaged in an unfair trade practice by refusing to return the excess payment to the complainant, which was a clear violation of established market rates.

Consequently, the District Commission directed the shop to refund the sum of Rs. 3/- to the complainant. In addition, a compensation of Rs. 25,000 was to be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of the order.

Case Title: Prafulla Kumar Dash vs Propriter, Goyal Printing Zone

Case No.: CC/63/2023

Advocate for the Complainant: None

Advocate for the Respondent: P. Pujari, Adv. & Associates

Click Here To Read/Download Order