State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Of Punjab vs Sham Lal Goyal on 27 July, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.737 of 2004
Date of institution: 24.06.2004
Date of decision : 27.07.2010
1. The State of Punjab through the Financial Commissioner and Secretary,
Excise and Taxation, Punjab, Chandigarh.
2. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, Patiala.
3. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Distilleries), Punjab,
Patiala.
4. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ferozepur Division,
Ferozepur.
5. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Muktsar.
.....Appellants
Versus
Shri Sham Lal Goyal resident of City Hotel Muktsar, District President, National
Consumer Awareness Group Regd., Muktsar.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 13.02.2004
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Muktsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.B.S.Dhillon, AAG, Punjab.
For the respondent : None JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT This order will dispose of three appeals namely First Appeal No.737 of 2004 (State of Punjab and others v. Shri Sham Lal Goyal), First Appeal No.706 of 2004 (National Consumer Awareness Group v. State of Punjab and others) and First Appeal No.739 of 2004 (The Controller, Weights and Measures Department v. National Consumer Awareness Group and others) as all the three appeals are directed against the same impugned order dated 13.02.2004 passed by the learned First Appeal No.737 of 2004 2 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short "the District Forum"). The facts are taken from First Appeal No.737 of 2004 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. The National Consumer Awareness group, Muktsar through its President Sham Lal Goyal respondent had filed a complaint against the appellants seeking directions to the appellants as under : -
"1. Fix the maximum retail price of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and country made liquor, bear, wine etc.
2. To get printed the maximum retail price on label of each and every bottle of Indian made foreign liquor, country made liquor, bear and wine etc.
3. The cash memo must be given to the consumer as per the Excise Act, 1914 on every purchase of Indian made foreign liquor, country made liquor, bear and wine etc.
4. To print the name of Distillery.
5. To comply with the provisions of Section 83 of Standards of Weights and Measurements Act, 1976.
6. Pay compensation in the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of litigation expenses and other expenses incurred due to avoidable litigation forced upon the complainant."
3. The appellants filed the written statement and contested the case.
4. Parties produced the affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.
5. The learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 13.02.2004 accepted the complaint and gave the reliefs as under : - First Appeal No.737 of 2004 3
"We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the law referred by both the parties. It is clear that the opposite parties are violating the statutory law while forming the Excise Policy specially the Ex.C-7 which is produced by the complainant from New Delhi the maximum retail price has been printed. Moreover the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted to safe guard the interest of the consumer and the general consigns. A man of ordinary prudence can think that a particular commodity ready for the sale should have the maximum retail price but we are of the opinion that the entire excise policy can not be held Ultra Virus to the statutory rules and regulations in the summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act. So we partly accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties No.1 to 5 that they will ensure that the sales men of each and every Vend should issue the cash memo to the purchaser on each and every purchase of liquor, wine and bear etc. We further direct the opposite parties No.1 to 5 to fix and print on the label the maximum retail price of Bear. And we direct the opposite parties No.6 to 8 to ensure the compliance of the statutory rules and regulations. We further direct to the opposite parties to pay Rs.8,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant and the opposite parties No.1 to 8 are jointly liable to pay the above amount. The above directions be complied with 30 days after the receipt of the copy of this order. The copies of First Appeal No.737 of 2004 4 order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records."
6. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellants with the prayer that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2004 be set aside.
7. Similarly, First Appeal No.739 of 2004 has been filed with the prayer that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2004 be set aside.
8. On the other hand, the respondent has filed appeal (First Appeal No.706 of 2004) seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation/costs.
9. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
10. The District Forum is only to decide the case where the consumer has suffered the loss because of the deficiency in services either while purchasing the goods on payment basis or while hiring the services on payment basis. In the present case, the respondent is only seeking directions to the appellants to follow particular procedure relating to fixation of the price for liquor bottles and for labelling the liquor bottles before sale. Such directions can be issued only by the Hon'ble High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction. The District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to issue such directions.
11. The respondents are not even a consumer as the respondents have neither alleged nor proved if they had purchased certain goods on payment basis or even hired the services on payment basis.
12. Therefore, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment dated 13.2.2004 is set aside.
13. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.4,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 24.6.2004. This amount of Rs.4,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. First Appeal No.737 of 2004 5 First Appeal No.739 of 2004
14. In view of the reasons recorded above, this appeal is also accepted and the impugned judgment dated 13.2.2004 is set aside.
15. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.1500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 25.6.2004. This amount of Rs.1500/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. First Appeal No.706 of 2004
16. In view of the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed.
17. The arguments in all these 3 appeals were heard on 21.07.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
18. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA)
MEMBER
July 27 , 2010.
Paritosh