State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Proprietor, Ananda Departmental ... vs S.Maheswaran, Palayamkottai. on 6 February, 2024
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Date of appeal filed: 30.05.2017
Present
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A.No.08/2018
TUESDAY, THE 06th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024
The Proprietor,
Ananda Departmental Store,
81-B/182, Tiruchendur Road,
Palayamkottai. Appellant/Opposite Party
-Vs-
S.Maheswaran,
S/o Sethuramalingam,
15-B, Sriraja Bhavanam,
Pandithurai 2nd Street,
Kulavanigarpuram,
Palayamkottai. Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for Appellant/Opposite party : Mr.S.Alagumurugan, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : Mr.B.Chandran, Advocate.
Aggrieved by the award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Tirunelveli made in C.C.No.52/2014, dated 20.03.2017 the opposite
party preferred this appeal. This appeal coming before me for final hearing on
02.01.2024 and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the
following:
2
ORDER
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH,PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (Open Court).
1. The Facts:
The complainant purchased groceries items from the opposite party/Anantha Department Store for Rs.1,748.50/- on 07.10.2013, totally twenty eight items. The nineth item is Sundal(B) 250 grams two packets. In the packets M.R.P.rate is not mentioned, the price of Sundal (B) is Rs.32- and in the Sundal packets some insects were found inside the packets. And the seventeenth item is the Margo Soap. The opposite party charged and collected Rs.42/- from the complainant instead of Rs.40/-the M.R.P. Rate. Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice he filed a consumer complaint to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.32/- towards the price of Sundal and Rs.2/- towards excess rate collected for Margo Soap and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and also cost of the proceedings.
2. The opposite party in their written version admitted the selling of Marco soap for Rs.42/- and they submitted it is only a clerical mistake. Further they submitted that even though it is not correct to allege unfair trade practice that the Sundal pocket contains insects they are ready to refund the above cost of Rs.32/-. Hence they prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The District Commission after receiving affidavits, evidence and documentsExhibits-A1 to A4 and M.O.1 and M.O.2, finally, the District Commission concluded that the above practice as deficiency in service, and allowed the complaint 3 in-part and awarded directing the opposite party to pay Rs.14,034/- (Rs.32/- towards cost of two Sundal packets and Rs.2/- towards excess rate collected for Margo Soap, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for unfair trade practice and mental agony and Rs.4000/- towards cost) to the complainant.
4. Aggrieved with the above order, the appeal has been preferred by the opposite party on the following: Grounds: That, the above case is abuse of process of law and no documents was filed to prove the same and the award is excessive in nature. Hence they prayed to allow the appeal.
5. In this case, the appellant/opposite party filed their written arguments and made an endorsement to treat it, as their oral arguments. The respondent/complainant did not file written arguments before this Commission.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the opposite party committed deficiency in service and whether the appeal is to be allowed?
7. Discussion on the Point: It is an admitted fact that, the complainant purchased groceries items from the opposite party/Anantha Department Store totally twenty eight item. The nineth item Sundal (B) packets some insects were found inside in the packet. Ofcourse this fact was not proved before the District Commission.
8. However it is an admitted fact that, the seventeenth item for Margo Soap which M.R.P.Rate is fixed as Rs.40/- but the opposite party charged and collected 4 Rs.42/- from the complainant. That is extra charges of Rs.2/- as a sale price for Marco soap was collected. The sale above the M.R.P. is punishable offence.
9. Anyhow this Commission found that collecting and pricing excess of Rs.2/- in a product by the opposite party from one customer amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
10. Moreover the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in, M/s. Cargo Tarpaulin Industries .Vs. Sri Mallikarjun B. Kori, on 5 July, 2007. R.P.No.2132/2007, wherein it has held as follows:
"We have gone through the impugned order. It is apparent that the petitioner has charged Rs.112/- for Duck Back Baby Sheet sold to the complainant. Its Maximum Retail Price was Rs.90/-. According to the petitioner that though M.R.P was Rs.124/- but the Duck Back Baby Sheet was having an old label of Rs.92/- and after discussions, the price was settled at Rs.112/-. If there was an old label on the Duck Back Baby Sheet, indicating M.R.P. of Rs.92/- its M.R.P. would not increase, if subsequently due to increased cost of production, transportation etc. M.R.P. of subsequently manufactured goods is increased. If in these circumstances, the State Commission has imposed exemplary compensation of Rs.10,000/-, we think that the order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference". The Revision petition is dismissed accordingly".
11. In the above case, it was held that charging more than M.R.P. is an unfair trade practice. This Commission therefore in agreement with the finding of the Ld. District Commission that the opponents have adopted unfair trade practice. It is also necessary to refer the provisions of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011.
Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011
2. Definitions:-
5
(m) "retail sale price" means the maximum price at which the commodity in packaged form may be sold to the consumer inclusive of all taxes.
6. Declaration to be made on every package.- (1) Every package shall bear thereon or on label securely affixed thereto, a definite, plain and conspicuous declaration made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter as, to-
(e) the retail sale price of the package (shall clearly indicate that it is the maximum retail price inclusive of all taxes in Indian currency.)
18. Provisions relating to wholesale dealer and retail dealers.- (2) No retail dealer or other person including manufacturer, packer, importer and wholesale dealer shall make any sale of any commodity in packed form at a price exceeding the retail sale price thereof.
12. The above provisions clearly states that no manufacturer can sell any product in packed form at a price exceeding the retail sale price i.e. more than MRP. The opponents having charged Rs.2/- more than M.R.P. Rate which is not as prescribed and thus there is a violation of the provisions of Rule 18(2) of the Packaged Commodities Rules 2011, and thus also can be termed as unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) (vii) of the "Act".
13. This Commission took note that as boosted by the appellant themselves, that they are a leading Departmental Store in the city, how much they have gained by such unfair trade practice. Considering the magnitude and the above circumstances the direction to stop such unfair trade practice, the entire finding and award of the District commission is confirmed by this Commission.
14. However in this case it is admitted by the opposite party that they are ready to refund Rs.32/- towards the cost of Sundal packets. Considering that admission this Commission did not impose any cost to the appellant/opposite party in the 6 appeal. Hence the order of the District Commission is hereby confirmed and the appeal is dismissed without cost and answered accordingly.
15. In the result,
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The order passed by the District Commission, Tirunelveli, in C.C.No.52/2014, dated 20.03.2017 is hereby confirmed.
3. There is no order as to costs in this appeal.
Dictated and pronounced in the open court to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 06th day of February 2024.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxx S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
7Corrected