‘Men may lie, documents don’t’: Overcharged Rs 400 on bra, Delhi woman wins Rs 20,000

The order added, “The proof of payment shows that the complainant… had paid Rs 3,395 on March 3, 2024”  to the lingerie store through GPay, and the amount was the same as mentioned on the invoice. 

Bra, bill, battle 

The woman purchased two bras at a lingerie store in Lajpat Nagar, Delhi, on March 3, 2024. The price tag on a bra showed an MRP of Rs 1,495, but the invoice charged her Rs 1,895, resulting in an excess charge of Rs 400. She paid the total bill of Rs 3,395 through Google Pay.

She alleged that after racing home, she noticed the price difference, and she returned to the store to raise the issue. According to her, the staff did not resolve the matter and instead told her that the product carried an old price tag and that the same item was priced at Rs 1,895.

She reached the commission seeking a refund of Rs 400 with interest, compensation for deficiency in service, harassment and alleged unfair trade practice, and litigation costs.

Name game 

The Lingrie store disputed the woman’s claim that she was the customer who made the purchase, but the invoice carried the customer name “ILMA”, different from what she claimed her name was. It was argued that there was no clear evidence connecting her to the transaction.

The company also denied that the woman had contacted or visited the store immediately after the purchase. It said she raised the allegations only in a legal notice issued nearly five months later, on August 2, 2024. The store said the notice did not contain details such as the invoice number or product information needed to investigate the complaint. The company argued that the complaint was an afterthought and sought its dismissal.

UPI trail 

The woman said the store staff did not ask for her name or phone number while preparing the bill. She also relied on her UPI payment record to show that she had paid the same amount mentioned on the invoice.

She stated that the lingerie staff kept assuring her that the billing issue would be resolved but failed to take corrective action, forcing her to send the legal notice.

Documents don’t lie 

The commission rejected the lingerie store’s argument that the woman was not the consumer. It noted that the invoice and the GPay transaction were of the same amount. It also found that the product’s price tag showed Rs 1,495, while the invoice charged Rs 1,895 for the same product. Since the product details on the invoice matched the product’s identification number on the price tag, it held that the store had overcharged by Rs 400 and indulged in an unfair trade practice.

The commission allowed the complaint and directed the lingerie store to refund the Rs 400 with 8 per cent annual interest from March 3, 2024, within three months, failing which the interest would rise to 10 per cent until payment. The company was also directed to pay Rs 20,000 for harassment and litigation costs.

Takeaway

The order reinforces that a store cannot overcharge a customer and then avoid accountability for its actions. It also makes clear that coercing customers into paying such charges can constitute an unfair trade practice, leading to refund and compensation orders under the Consumer Protection Act.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and Union territories or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories:

Israel conflict cited for job delay, Kerala man given ‘fake flight booking’ wins Rs 5.8 lakh payout

15-km walk to Vaishno Devi without ‘travel help’, agency to pay Rs 5 lakh to travellers

Paid for 2 ‘Vietnam jackfruit’ plants online but ‘got none’, Kerala man wins payout