DOF.13/1/2010 DOO. IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Prethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the day of 2010 CC.13/2010 P.K.Padmanabhan, Post Annur, (Via)Payyannur. 670 332. (Rep. by Adv.K.K.Purushothaman Nambiar) Complainant 1.Manager, Supply co Supermarket, Perumba, Payyannur. (Rep. by Adv.V.M.Krishnakumar) 2. Managing Director, Supply co, Thiruvnanthapuram. Opposite parties O R D E R Smt. K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. Rs.5, 500/- including the excess price received by the 1st opposite party. The complainant’s case is that he is a consumer activist and according to him the Supply co Supermarket outlet in Perumba, Payyannur is charging excess amount for some commodities on1.110 he had purchased a packet of 250 gms of Turmeric for Rs.52/-as per bill NO.0996213 dt.1.1.10. But at that time, it cost only Rs.35/- in the open market. According to the complainant no MRP or weight is exhibited on the packet supplied by Supply co. So the complaint had contacted the opposite party several times for refund of the excess amount. But the opposite party is not ready to do so. So the complainant had suffered so much of mental as well as physical agony. Hence the complaint. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum both opposite parties appeared and filed their version. The opposite parties denied the averment that the Perumba outlet of supply co market is charging excess amount for commodities. They also denied the version that the opposite party had charged excess amount of Rs.52/- for 250- gms. of Turmeric even though it cost only Rs.35/- in the open market. According to the opposite party they used to sell family fresh Turmeric of 250 and 100 gms. Packet. They had exhibited the MRP, weight and the name of the commodity upon the cover in which it contains. But the packet produced by the complainant by saying that it was purchased from opposite party’s shop is not actually purchased from opposite party. The complaint has not purchased anything from the Supply co on 1.1.10. If it is so it is evident from his ration card. The MRP is exhibited on the packet and there is a price list board exhibited in every outlet. The complainant can select goods after examining goods and the outlet is arranged in such a manner, so he can select product after satisfying the price and quality. The complainant purchased after knowing content, weight and price. At the time of purchase he has no complaint. The depot Management committee containing 5 members is fixing the price and hence the price fixing procedure is very transparent and the depot manager cannot fix the price arbitrarily. There is a guide line for fixing price. Since the complaint had not purchased anything from the Perumba outlet the opposite party is not liable to give anything to him. Since the complainant had not purchased anything from opposite party he is not a consumer of opposite party. The Perumba out let is in the 3rd place among outlet of Supply co in Taliparamba Taluk. So the complainant has filed this complaint as per the direction of the other merchants in the Perumba and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer and Fora has jurisdiction to try the case? 2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 4. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW 1 and DW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 and B1 to B5. Issue No. 1 to 4 The case of the complainant is that he has purchased Turmeric finger, 250 gm, packet from opposite party and he had charged Rs.542/- for the same on 1.1.10, which was excess amount than with open market. In order to prove his case he has produced Ext.A1, cash bill, A2 photocopy of the cover of turmeric, A3, reply from additional secretary, A4 Deshabimani daily dt.2.1.10, A5. Manorama daily dt.2.1.10. According to opposite party the complainant has not purchased anything from the opposite party on 1.1.10 and in order to prove their case they have produced Ext.B1, circular, B2 copy of the minutes of Depot Management committee on 8.12.09 along with price list, warranty declaration form and tax invoice. The opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer as per the Act. As per the act a consumer means any person who (i)Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes user of such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. In the case in hand the complainant had produced Ext.A1 bill which was issued on 1.1.10from Supply co Supermarket, Perumba out let. But the Ext.A1 was not in the name of the complainant. The place where name and address to be shown is blank. The opposite party contended that some of the items in the bill can be purchased only with the help of the ration card and the complainant deposed that he has no ration card at all. According to complainant he had purchased the item through one of his friends ration card. But he has not proved that he has purchased the item as per Ext.A1 bill. More over the b ill lacks name of the complainant. So the complainant failed to prove that he had purchased the Turmeric as per the Ext.A1. So there is no evidence before us to connect the complainant and the Turmeric. So we are of the opinion that complainant is not a consumer. Hence it is found that the complainant is not a consumer, we re not going deep into the merit of the case since it is found complainant is not a consumer. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. NO cost. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1. cash bill A2 photocopy of the cover of turmeric, A3, reply from additional secretary A4 Deshabimani daily dt.2.1.10 A5. Manorama daily dt.2.1.10 Exhibits for the opposite party B1, circular B2 copy of the minutes of Depot Management committee on 8.12.09 B3. Price list B4. Copy of Warranty declaration form B5. Copy of tax invoice. Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.Vijayakiumar /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
