Kannan Department Stores Fined
The forum president, S.A. Sreeramulu, passed the order while disposing a complaint filed by Coimbatore Consumer Cause. The complainant, Mrs. V. S. Ravi, joint secretary of the consumer body had on January 22, 2007 bought a Line Tester from the stores paying Rs. 33, whereas the MRP was Rs. 32 (inclusive of all taxes). The complainant approached the branch in-charge and questioned the same for which there was no proper response.
Then, he wrote letters on January 31, 2007 and February 11, 2007 to the department store to refund the excess amount of Re. 1. The department store neither refunded the excess amount nor gave any reply. Then a complaint was preferred with Inspector of Labour, Coimbatore, on February 22, 2007. The same was reminded on March 19, 2007. With no response from the Labour Department, information regarding the action taken on the complaint was sought by invoking Right to Information Act on June 12, 2007. Then a letter regarding Right to Information Act was sent to the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai.
Subsequently, the Inspector of Labour informed on September 6, 2007, that a fine of Rs. 1,800 was collected from the department store based on the complaint. Even though a fine was paid to the department, the excess amount was not refunded to the complainant despite repeated request. Hence a complaint was filed before the consumer forum. The department store contented that it always sold products below MRP and denied having collected excess charges. It said that the Government had already levied a penalty and it could not be penalised twice for the same cause of action.
The forum concluded that the store had collected Rs. 33 instead of Rs. 32. It directed the department store to refund the excess amount collected, Rs. 5000 into the account of the Consumer Relief Fund maintained by the Union Government towards compensation for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and pay Rs.1,000 to the complainant within two months from the date of the order failing which the complainant was at liberty to execute the order under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.