TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Patiala: Store told to pay Rs 5,000 for Re 1 overcharge

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement
Advertisement

Patiala, December 11

Advertisement

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered a retail store, More Retail Ltd, to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation to a consumer for causing him harassment and mental agony by overcharging him Re 1.

In his complaint, Jasmeet Singh stated that he had visited the store on August 23, 2019, and had purchased a 450 ml pouch of Amul Moti Toned Milk. He said the store charged him Rs 26 against the MRP of Rs 25. After his objection to the overcharging was overlooked, Jasmeet took the matter to the court.

The court in its order stated that the retail store had admitted to the act of overcharging, but added that it was not a deliberate act and had taken place due to human error.

Advertisement

The store stated that the price had changed as the packet quantity was reduced from 500 ml to 450 ml. The price of the 500 ml pouch of milk was Rs 26 and that of the 450 ml pack Rs 25. It claimed the change had happened within a short period of time and therefore, it went unnoticed.

But the court stated that the packet with the MRP of Rs 25 had been manufactured on July 23, 2019, while it was sold a month later on August 23. It said the invoice for sale was issued a month after the date of manufacturing of the packet and deemed the retail store’s plea untenable.

It said the store had failed to upgrade its system with the updated price even a month after the changes and it led to overcharging not only the complainant but also the other customers, who had bought this product over the same period as well. This is an unfair trade practice.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement