State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mukkanneshwari Bar And Restaurant. vs M.N. Hariskumar. on 13 February, 2023
Daily Order 13/02/2023 O R D E R
BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is against the order dated 17.08.2015 passed in C.C.No.1794/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chamarajanagar.
Heard from appellant. Respondent not present.
Complainant filed this complaint alleging unfair trade practice in selling liquor in higher price against MRP and submits that on 18.05.2014 complainant had been to appellant's bar and restaurant and purchased 180 ML of Mc Donald Brandi by paying Rs.150/- and MRP is only Rs.130/-. Hence, OPs have rendered unfair trade practice in selling Mc. Donald Brandi in excess price and filed complaint before District Commission. Without considering the defense District Commission allowed the complaint and directed this OP to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,000/-, litigation costs of Rs.1,000/- along with Rs.100/- excess amount received. Infact they have obtained bar license under Form CL-9 from Excise Department as per which sale of liquor is restricted to persons along with meals and refreshments within the premises only, whereas the complainant on 26.05.2014 has purchased Mc Donald brandi, but, not utilized the said liquor and taken away with a sealed one. Taking the receipt he had filed a complaint alleging unfair trade practice without any basis. They are not liable to pay any compensation. Infact liquor which was sold by them has to be consumed in the premises itself. Whereas, the complainant not consumed liquor in premises, he has taken away and filed a false complaint. District Commission without considering the said fact allowed the complaint. Hence, prays to set aside the order.
On perusal of the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal and Form CL-9 issued by Excise Department in favour of appellant, it is noticed that they have permitted to sell the liquor for consuming in the premises itself and not for take away. Whereas in this case complainant has not used the liquor which was purchased at the appellant's bar and restaurant and as per the Form CL9 this appellant is authorized to sell liquor at their price if they have provide premises for refreshments and using meals. We noticed complainant has not utilized the said facility, instead of that has only taken over the liquor. The MRP is not applicable to the bar and restaurant. Hence, District Commission failed to appreciate the condition in full in Form CL-9 and CL-2 of Excise Department which in our opinion there is no any unfair trade practice rendered by appellant in selling product for utilizing at the premises at the rate as shown in the bill. District Commission made an error in not considering the defense taken by appellant. Hence, it requires interference. We found the order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Consequently, complaint is dismissed.
The amount in deposit is directed to be refunded to the appellant.
Member Judicial Member