Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/3/2018

Pabitra Kumar Tripathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

1- The Director ROCOMO AUTO PARTS - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.Mishra, L.Pujhari & P.K. Tripathy.

25 Jul 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 3/2018

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Sri. Pabitra Kumar Tripathy,

S/O-Late Ashutosh Tripathy

R/O-Govindtola, Po/PS-Dhanupali,

Dist- Sambalpur, Odisha.                                                                 …..Complainant

Vrs.

1. The Director ROCOMO AUTO PARTS

Marketed and packed by Rakesh Auto Traders,

1358/21 Naiwala, Karolbagh, New Delhi-1100055

2. Padmalaya Auto Spares,

Dhanupali Chowk, Sambalpur-768005                         …….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant   :-Sri. S.K.Mishra, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P.s                 :- None

 

DATE OF HEARING :xxxxxxxx, DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 25.07.2022

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The facts of the complainant/Petitioner is that the Petitioner purchased a C.D.I. Unit from the O.P No. 2, the retail counter of O.P No. 1 by paying Rs. 250/- as told by the O.P No. 2 . The petitioner found that there was no mention of any MRP anywhere in the sold items. The Petitioner met the O.P No 2 immediately and enquired about the reason but the O.P No2 simply showed his inability to establish the reason of none mentioning of the MRP as because this unethical procedure was adopted by the O.P since long. The Petitioner thought it would be better to bring the issue to the knowledge of the O.P No. 1 and to know why such type of illegal marketing policy is going on to deceive the general public. The Petitioner wrote a letter to the O.P No. 1 mentioning about the purchase by him on 7.12.2017 but O.P No. 1 did not bother to reply the quarry of the Petitioner though he is in an illegal practice of the marketing. Hence this case.
2. The case of the O.P No 2 is that the Petitioner purchased a C.D.I Unit from his retail shop on 6.12.2017 and paid him Rs. 250/- . After half an hour the Petitioner returned back to his shop with the same CDI Unit not opened, there is no mention of MRP anywhere on the sale pack. As he is a regular purchaser of the O.P No. 1 through his whole seller, always charging his customer basing on the invoiced, he handed over he has verified this type of not mention of MRP. O.P No. 2 also prayed for taking proper legal action against the O.P No. 1, for such type of illegal marketing.

The O.P No. 1 is not appeared and gives his version in this case.

3. From the above facts it is found that such type of unethical practice of marketing by the O.P No. 1 is illegal and unfair for which the general public are being cheated. It is therefore ordered to the O.P No. 1 to stop this type of unethical practice of marketing and to print MRP on each and every type of items that he is manufacturing and marketing. Further the O.P No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 250/- towards cost of the item, Rs. 2,000/- towards unnecessarily causing mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of the case to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this Order failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization..

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 25^th day of July, 2022.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.