District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh District Commission has directed Unisex Fashions Pepe Jeans, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, to refund Rs 500 charged extra with interest for a jeans purchased in offer and also to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation to a consumer for causing harassment as well as litigation expenses.
Renu Goyal, a city resident in the complaint filed before the commission said that she visited the Pepe Jeans shop in Sector 17-C, on January 15, 2021, which was offering “one on one” scheme as per which customer had to pay the price of higher product and he/she would get another product of same or lesser value free of cost.
Accordingly, she purchased four denim jeans of Pepe brand from the OP for her husband having MRP of 3,299, 3,599, 3,799 and 3,999 and as per offer, she paid higher amount of two jeans i.e. 3,999 and 3,799 = 7,798 on January 15, 2021.
Thereafter, as one jean having MRP of 3,299 was not comfortable, therefore, she and her husband went to the shop for exchange of the same and selected another denim jean having MRP of 3,799.Since she had already paid the higher amount, nothing was to be paid by her but still the shop owner charged difference amount of two jeans from her i.e. 3799 – 3299 = 500. She resisted the act of the shop but to no avail.
Alleging that the acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of shop owner she filed the complaint seeking refund of the excess amount alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
In its written version, shop owner denied the allegations . They said that since the complainant wanted to exchange the item of 3,299 with that of 3,799 therefore, she was rightly asked to pay 500 and as such no excess amount was charged from her.
After hearing of the arguments the commission said that shop owner has failed to place on record any terms & conditions of the scheme specifically stipulating that in case of exchange, the customer would be liable to pay the differential amount between the original product and the exchanged product, despite the fact that the overall transaction was governed by the “One on One” offer.
Thus, in the absence of any such disclosed condition, the act of shop in demanding and collecting an additional amount of 500- from the complainant certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.
