In an exemplary punishment, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sambalpur on Tuesday ordered a Xerox shop owner to pay a hefty fine of Rs 25,000 for refusing to return Rs 3 to a customer.
As per the order, for failing to pay the fine, the amount will carry with 9% interest per annum till realisation to the complainant.
“The OP is directed to refund Rs. 3/- towards excess money received from the Complainant to-wards Xerox charges and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant,” the order of the Commission read.
As per the reports, Prafulla Kurar Dash, a journalist from Budharaja area in Sambalpur district had gone to the shop to get photocopy of document on 28 April, 2023. Dash had given five rupees and told the shopkeeper to return three rupees as the genuine rate of photocopy is Rs 2/- per copy. However, the shopkeeper refused to return the amount and abused the complainant.
After repeated requests, the person sitting in the owner chair returned Rs 5/- and insulted the complainant by saying ‘he donated the money to the beggar’. Further, the shopkeeper had not given any receipt or bill which is an unfair trade practice and thereby causing considerable mental agony, harassment, and inconvenience apart from financial loss.
As per the order, the shopkeeper is liable to compensate the complainant for these reasons.
“The opposition party had not given any receipt or bill which is an unfair trade practice adopted by the OP. Further, the OP is collecting excess money per photocopy as compared to market rate. Hence, the OP is deficient in service. It is an exploitation to a consumer,” the order further read.
“It’s not my individual case. It’s a matter of concern for the rights of all the consumers. I was so much insulted after the incident that I lodged a complaint at the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and got justice thanks to the intervention by the Court,” said Prafulla Kurar Dash, the complainant.