Kerala Consumer Forum Imposes Rs.35K Cost On Shop Owner For Charging Customers Rs.35 Above MRP On Ladies Garment

In a significant decision, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thrissur invoked Section 14(1) (hb) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 to direct an inner wear garments shop to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the Legal Benefit Fund (LBF) maintained at Registry of the Commission, towards reparation for the loss and injury inflicted on a large number of consumers who are not conveniently identifiable. 

Section 14(1) (hb) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('Act, 1986') provides for the payment of such sum as may be determined by the Commission, in the event of it being satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, and such loss or injury had been suffered by a large number of consumers who are not identifiable conveniently. 

The Bench comprising President C.T. Sabu, and Members Sreeja. S., and Ram Mohan R. invoked the provision in a complaint alleging being charged in excess of the MRP marked on a product. 

"Being a sentinel on the qui vive as regards consumer rights, we can’t assume an ostrich’s stance, while we come across such deceptive and defrauding practices adopted by errant traders. The sticker bearing a higher MRP affixed by the opposite party points to the astounding fact that, a large number of consumers who are not conveniently identifiable, are victims of the said defrauding and deceptive practice of excess charging. So is the case with the wrongful practice of issuing bills/invoices/receipts/cash memos with delible prints/entries. We want to dispel the impression or belief of the wrong-doers that they are liable to compensate only those consumers who sue them. For their knowledge, law meant for the better protection of consumers at large from such acts of exploitation, provides the Commission with sufficient legal teeth to direct such wrong-doers to pay such sum as may be determined by it, for the loss and injury suffered by a large," the Commission observed.  

It thereby directed the aforementioned amount to be paid by the Opposite party to the Legal Benefit Fund towards reparation for the loss faced by the large number of unidentifiable consumers.

The complainant had purchased a 'Little Lacy Joli Bra' from Inner Shoppe, Thrissur for a sum of Rs. 175. The complainant alleged that the said amount was in excess of the MRP of Rs 140 marked on the product, which she discovered subsequently, on careful scrutiny, after reaching her home. 

The complainant alleged that despite her seeking the return of the product, the Opposite Party refused to do so. It is in such circumstances that she filed the present complaint alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the garment shop. 

The Opposite Party denied the averments, and submitted that the complainant had purchased another product, as well, for which the total amount had been charged. 

The Commission found that another sticker bearing legible marking of Rs. 175/- had been affixed on the product in addition to the sticker bearing the MRP pf Rs.140, which, in the opinion of the former, pointed to the mala fide intent of the latter. 

It thus found that the allegations of excess charging by the opposite party had been proved beyond doubt. The Commission held such act to be violative of f rule 18(2) of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011, which bars sale of any commodity in packed form at a price exceeding the retail sale price thereof. 

It also found that the Opposite Party had issued a bill bearing delible prints, which was yet another unfair trade practice, which left consumers helpless in case of disputes. 

"While being subjected to a deceptive practice as the one cited, the person who undergoes such defrauding and swindling practice would certainly experience a whirlwind of emotions, irrespective of the size of the sum he or she was defrauded with. Such a deceptive act from the part of an errant trader is tantamount to jeopardizing the very dignity of the consumer and his right to live a life free from exploitation or deception or any kind of unfair trade practice. The misdeeds on the part of the opposite party might certainly have inflicted agony and hardship, both mental and physical on the complainant," the Commission observed. 

It thus ordered a compensation of Rs. 10,0000/- towards compensation for the agony and hardship underwent by the consumer, and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of proceedings. 

The complainant was represented by Advocate K.M. Dil. Advocate R.N. Unni appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party.