State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ravi C vs Manager Beverages Corporation Ltd on 17 March, 2017
Daily Order KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.33/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2017 (Against the order in CC 194/2014 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad) PRESENT: SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI. V.V. JOSE : MEMBER APPELLANT: Ravi. A., 5/319(1), Ezhava Ellam, Durga Lane, Puthoor, Palakkad, Pin - 678001. Vs. RESPONDENT: The Manager, Beverages Corporation Ltd., Puthoor, Koppam, Palakkad - 678014. (By Adv: Sri. Ajith S. Nair) JUDGMENT
SHRI.V.V. JOSE : MEMBER This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of dismissal dated 30/10/2015 in CC 194/2014 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:
Complainant is an active member of Kerala Consumer Protection Centre, registered society under Puthur unit. He purchased 750ml II MH Whisky on 20/09/2014 for an amount of Rs.870/-. He alleges that opposite party has collected an extra amount of Rs.65/- in excess of MRP. The MRP affixed on the bottle was Rs.805/-. He alleges that opposite party is doing unfair trade practice and is collecting crores of rupees from consumers. Opposite party is fixing the price according to their wish. The organization in which the complainant is a member issued a notice on 20/10/2014 but no reply. Hence this complaint for a direction to refund Rs.65/- along with a travelling expenses of Rs.80/- and also a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a cost of Rs.5,000/-. Opposite party appeared on notice and filed their version denying all allegations. According to them the complaint is neither maintainable either in law or on facts. It is filed with malafide intentions. The price is fixed by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation, pursuant to the budget passed by Kerala Legislative Assembly. Even though the opposite party received the notice, they were not able to reply as it was forwarded to the Head Office for necessary actions. Complainant is not entitled for any compensation and cost as sought in the complaint. Opposite party sought for a dismissal of complaint with cost. Both parties filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination. The bottle was marked as MO1. Ext.A1 was marked from the side of complainant and Exts. B1 to B3 were marked from the side of opposite parties. Complainant was cross examined as PW1.
3. Matter was heard. The forum considered both issues i.e. is there any deficiency of service from the opposite parties and if so relief and costs entitled.
4. On perusal of documents produced and MO1 it was clear that opposite party has collected Rs.870/- against Rs.805/- printed in MO1. According to the submission of opposite party the price was fixed by KSBC Ltd. (M & M), pursuant to the budget passed by the legislative assembly. The price is controlled by Government of Kerala and opposite party has no control over it. The preprinted labels will not effect the collection of the revised tax. The IMFL are commodities solely controlled by Government only. Opposite party has produced the price list issued by KSBC and Kerala Finance Bill 2014. Opposite party produced the permission of order issued from Government of India. On perusal Ext.B3 the act of the opposite party is legal and law binding. Taking into account of the above discussion the forum below found that there is no deficiency of service and accordingly dismissed the complaint without cost. Aggrieved by the above order of dismissal of the complaint, the complainant preferred this appeal on various grounds.
5. The appellant alleged that for the disposal of the case the forum took one year by granting adjournments to the opposite party and the same is not in order. We have perused the records and found that this allegation does not have any substance. To comply all the necessary formalities by affording opportunity to either side, the forum within the reasonable time, the complaint it seen disposed off.
6. Another ground of appeal is regarding the collection of excess price as against the MRP printed on the label and its illegality. The lower forum has addressed the issue and found against the complainant on various reasons. The Beverages Corporation / opposite party is a Government entity. By statutory backing the government has created this agency for the sale of IMFL in Kerala State. The monopoly is with the Government of Kerala. The Government revises the taxes and levies on IMFL from time to time by making amendments in the tax statute and through the fiscal budgets. The complainants case is that he has purchased IMFL on 20/09/2014 and excess amount of Rs.65/- was collected to that of the MRP printed on the label and bottle. It is admitted that the MRP printed on the label is only Rs.805/-. But opposite party collected Rs.870/-. The opposite party to justify their action produced the price list prevailing during the year 2014-15, which is effective from April14 to March, 2015. According to them the price list issued by Beverages Corporation marked as Ext.B1. In the appendix of the order B1 is stated to be the copy of financial bill, which is not correct. It can only be error by oversight. B1 is the price list approved by the opposite party for sale of IMFL in the whole state of Kerala. The sales depots are bound to collect the same on sale. The price includes the landed cost, excise duty, sales tax plus cess. In page number 56 (running page number 80) of the LCR the selling price at shops is shown as Rs.870/- for the bottle of whisky stated in the complaint. This document is not fabricated even according to the complainant. The complainant while cross examining has fairly conceded that the price of the liquor stated in complaint, manufactured by Tilak Nagar Industries Ltd. is Rs.870/-. The amount which is collected by the opposite party. The shop keeper has collected only the price fixed by the Beverage Corporation supplied by their head office which is effective during the period of sale. The opposite party has also produced Ext.B2 the Kerala finance bill 2014 was perused by us. As per the finance bill clause 5 amendments in KCST Act, 63 it is proposed amendment in the scheduled of the said act, item no.2 foreign liquor, it is proposed as follows:
(4) in the SCHEDULE, in serial number "2 Foreign Liquor", for item (ii) and the entries against it, the following items and entries shall, respectively, be substituted, namely -
other than Beer and Wine, for which purchase value incurred is rupees 400 per case or more;
other Foreign Liquor, not covered under items (i) and (ii) above Explanation - For the purpose of this Schedule,-
"case" means, 48 bottles of 180ml. each, or 24 bottles of 375 ml. each, or 18 bottles of 500ml each or 12 bottles of 750 ml each, or 9 bottles of 1000 ml. each or 6 bottles of 1500 ml. each;
"purchase value" means the value at which the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited purchases such liquor from the suppliers and in case any liquor is not purchased by the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited, such value as fixed by the Commissioner of Excise, for the purpose of levy of duties as per the Abkari Act, 1077 (1 of 1077)".
7. As per the proposal the duty is fixed at 150% and it is a virtual increasing price. This increasing price is to be collected by the seller in the state and to be remitted in the exchequer. Opposite party states that by virtue of B2 there was increase in price which is also added ground to increase the price. The opposite party also produced a notification published by Government of India, Ministry of Consumer affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi. In the said letter in response to the opposite parties queries the department of Consumer Affairs has given instructions as follows:
"Where, after any commodity has been pre-packed for sale, any tax payable in relation to such commodity is revised, the retail dealer or any other person shall not make any retail sale of such commodity at a price exceeding the revised retail sale price, communicated to him by the manufacturer, or where the manufacturer is not the packer, the packer, and it shall be, the duty of the manufacturer or packer as the case may be, to indicate by not less than two advertisements in one or more newspapers and also by circulation of notices to the dealers and to the Director in the Central Government and Controllers of Legal Metrology in the States and Union Territories, the revised prices of such packages but the difference between the price marked on the package and the revised price shall not, in any case, be higher than the extent of increase in the tax or in the case of imposition of fresh tax higher than the fresh tax so imposed.
Provided that publication in any newspaper, of such revised price shall not be necessary where such revision is due to any increase in, or imposition or, any tax payable under any law made by the State Legislation:
Provided, that publication in any newspaper, of such revised price shall not be necessary such revision is due to any increase in or imposition or, any tax payable under any law made by state legislations. Provided further that the retail dealer or other person shall not charge such revised price in relation to any packages except those packages which bear marking indicating that they were pre-packed in the month in which such tax has been revised or fresh tax has been imposed in the month immediately following the month aforesaid;
Provided also that where the revised prices are lower than the price marked on the package the retail dealer or other person shall not charge any price in excess of the revised price, irrespective of the month in which the commodity was pre-packed."
8. This order also gives mandate to the opposite party to collect the prices in tune with the excise duty increase and KGST. The lower forum considered all there aspects and came to a conclusive decision that the act of opposite party does not amount to deficiency of service and therefore not liable for the alleged complaint. The lower forum found the issues against complainant and dismissed the complaint.
9. We do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the lower forum for the above reasons. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal and confirm the order of the lower forum.
In the result, we dismiss the appeal by upholding the order of the lower forum in CC 194/2014 dated 30/10/2015 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. No order of cost.
V.V. JOSE : MEMBER
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
nb
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.33/2016
JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2017
nb