Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/24/2020

S.Jayaraman, S/o.Shanmuga Nadar, 6/125, 3rd street, P.M.Samy Colony, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore 641 002. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Proprietor, Ganesh Department Store, No.802, Chetty Street, Coimbatore. And Another - Opp.Party(s)

PARTY IN PERSON

29 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

 

Present:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH ,                                     PRESIDENT

              TMT. S.M.   LATHA  MAHESWARI,                                                       MEMBER

 

F.A.No.24/2020

(Against the order passed in C.C.Sr.No.488/2019, dated 04.12.2019  on the file of the District Commission, Coimbatore)

 

FRIDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF APRIL 2021.

                                                                                                              

S. Jeyaraman,

S/o. Shanmuga Nadar,

Door No.6/125, 3^rd Street,

P.M. Samy Colony,

R.S. Puram,

Coimbatore  – 641 002.                                                                                                                           Appellant/Complainant

                                       

                      Vs

 

1.   Proprietor,

      Ganesh Department Store,    

      No.802, Shetty Street,

      Coimbatore – 641 001.  

 

2.   Proprietor,     

      ITC Limited,  

      No.37, J.L. Nehru Road,

      Kolkatta – 700 071.                                                                                                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties 

 

Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant      :  Appellant appeared party-in person.    

Counsel for Responent-1/Opposite Party-1 :  Notice served & Called absent.

Counsel for the Respondent -2/                :  M/s. A. Mohammed Gouse, Advocate.

          Opposite Party -2                        

 

           This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 30.03.2022 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-

 

ORDER

HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT.   

 

1.        This appeal has been filed under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the District Commission, Coimbatore  made in C.C.Sr.No.488/2019,  dated 04.12.2019 rejecting the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant herein.  

2.       For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Coimbatore.   (In short, “District Commission”).              

3.         The brief facts which are necessitated to decide this appeal are as follows;-  The  case of the complainant is that he purchased a Sunfeast “Marie Light”  200 grams Biscuit from the 1^st opposite party on 03.06.2019.  In the biscuit wrapper sheet, Rs.25/- was the display price printed on it and the same was struck off instead Rs.23/- was printed indicating in the bottom, Rs.2/-was given as discount. But, the actual MRP rate of the biscuit itself was only Rs.23/- and if it was so, the biscuit ought to have been sold for a sum of Rs.21/-by giving a discount of Rs.2/-.  Hence, according to the contention of the complainant/appellant, there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  Only for the purpose of marketing, they have printed the price of the biscuit as Rs.25/- in the wrapper and by striking off the same again it was printed as Rs.23/-.  But, the actual price of the biscuit itself is only Rs.23/-. Thus, there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complainant issued a notice to the 1^st opposite party but the same was returned as “Not Claimed”. Hence, the complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission claiming for a direction to the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transport expenses incurred by the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties. 

7.        After analyzing the materials, the District Commission rejected the complaint stating that the complainant has filed this complaint without any basis and legal grievances by imposing costs of Rs.750/- payable to the Coimbatore Consumer Legal Aid Account.  Aggrieved over the order of rejection, the complainant has preferred this appeal before this Commission.   

8.       Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the counsel for the 2^nd respondent/2^nd opposite party. The 1^st respondent/1^st opposite party was served with notice and remained absent.  

9.        It is the contention of the complainant that he had purchased a Sunfeasat Marie Light biscuit on 03.06.2019 from the 1^st opposite party. The biscuit packet’s wrapper displayed the price printed the same as of Rs.25/- and after the same was found struck off, Rs.23/- was printed in the said wrapper giving an impression to the customers as if they offered discount as though the actual price of the biscuit packet was Rs.23/- which are selling for Rs.21/- by giving discount of Rs.2/-. It is the further case of the complainant that MRP price of the Sunfeast Marie Light biscuit packet itself was only Rs.23/-. Hence, when the biscuits packet was sold beyond the MRP rate and therefore  there is an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

9.        Per contra, the counsel for the 2^nd Respondent/2^nd opposite party submitted that the complainant is put to strictly proof of the allegations made against the 2^nd opposite party.  It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased biscuit from the 1^st opposite party. In the biscuit’s wrapper price was printed as Rs.25/- and after the same was being struck off Rs.23/-was printed as its price indicating that Rs.2/- was given as discount.  Any common man with ordinary prudence, on seeing the wrapper, would understand that the price of the biscuit is Rs.23/-. Hence, the contention of the complainant that if the discount of Rs.2/- is given, the 1^st opposite party should have collected only Rs.21/- for the packet is utterly baseless.  Unfair trade practice attributed to the 2^nd opposite party is factually and legally untenable. It is not out of place to mention that if the complainant was not satisfied in any aspects about the biscuit purchased, be it quantity, price or its quality there is no need or compulsion for him to purchase the biscuit manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party. However, the complainant for the reasons best known to him, chose to buy the biscuit packet again and again in different parts of the State and filed the complaints before the various District Consumer Commissions as well as before this Commission. There is lack of bonafide motive on the part of the complainant which had resulted in undue hardship and inconvenience to the opposite parties. Hence, the 2^nd opposite party sought for dismissal of the appeal by upholding the order of the District Commission.

10.      Heard the submissions made by both sides and perused the materials available on records.  Based on the above submissions and the materials,  we come to the conclusion that the claim of the complainant could not be accepted for the reason that the opposite parties have not sold the biscuit over the MRP rate and therefore this Commission cannot find any fault with the opposite parties and accordingly we do not find any deficiency in service on their part.  This is yet another complaint among the several complaints filed by the complainant in order to waste the precious time of this Commission. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the submission made by the complainant except to confirm the order of the District Commission. It is seen that similar nature of the complaints were filed in the earlier occasions and all the complaints were dismissed by this Commission by making a common order passed by this Commission in F.A.Nos.170/2019 & 140/2019 on 19.12.2019.  The above decision of this Commission is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.             

10.         Therefore, in view of the above discussions held by this Commission, we come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint was rightly rejected by the District Consumer Commission and hence the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of rejection of the complaint.     

11.           In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission, Coimbatore made in C.C.Sr.No.488/2019, dated 04.12.2019. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

          

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL,                                                                                                                 R. SUBBIAH,

           MEMBER.                                                                                                                                       PRESIDENT. 

Index: Yes/No

TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/April/2022