Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/129

Mohit Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

B7, A unit of Basant Food & Sweets - Opp.Party(s)

Devaan Verma Adv.

10 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

   Consumer Complaint No.    129 of  03.03.2015

Date of Decision            :   10.08.2015

 

Mohit Jain aged about 25 years son of Rajesh Kumar Jain, resident of Somsons Colony, H.No.9, Malerkotla, District Sangrur. 

….. Complainant

Versus

1.B7, A Unit of Basant Foods & Sweets, SCO 138, Feroz Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Proprietor/Partner/Managing Director.

2.Manager, B7, A Unit of Basant Foods & Sweets, SCO 138, Feroz Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.

…Opposite parties

 

   (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         Sh.Devan Verma, Advocate.

For Ops                          :         Sh.A.S.Sran, Advocate

 

                                                                                O R D E R

 

SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

1.                          This complaint has been filed by Sh.Mohit Jain under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs, by alleging that the complainant purchased packed drinking water bottle of brand Kinley 1 litre and cold drink of brand Pepsi 300ml, which he has ordered. The MRP of water bottle was printed to be Rs.20/- and of cold drink to be Rs.18/-. While the Ops charged Rs.25/- each for them. The complainant paid Rs.25/- for each items and OP1 issued bill No.7882 of 17.12.2014, showing that they have charged Rs.25/- for one mineral water bottle of 1 litre and Rs.25/- for the Pepsi from the complainant. The Ops are supposed to provide proper drinking water facilities in their premises, but they failed to do the same and charged excess than the MRP mentioned on the product. By charging the excess amount than the MRP printed on the product, the Ops have violated Rule 18(2) of the Legal Meteorology (Package Commodity) Rules 2011 and Section 2 sub Section (C)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant made repeated requests to the Ops not to charge excess price than MRP printed on the products, but the Ops did not bother to the request of the complainant. Hence, by filing the present complaint, complainant has prayed that Ops be directed to refund the excess amount charged by them alongwith Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and torture and harassment suffered by him besides Rs.5500/- as counsel fee and litigation expenses to the complainant also claimed.

2.        Upon notices, the Ops were duly served and they put in their appearance through their counsel Sh.A.S.Sran, Advocate and filed their written reply, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. The answering OPs charged everything from the complainant as per control rates. The latest MRP of Kinley bottle is Rs.25/- and it was charged from the complainant as per MRP. As far as the question of cold drink is concerned, the answering Ops are not serving the cold drinks in the bottles. However, it is being served in the glasses provided by the answering Ops and the capacity of said glass is about 430 ML and the cold drink is also charged as per quantity not as per bottle price. Moreover, discount of Rs.405/- was also given to the complainant out of total bill of Rs.988/- and as such, the present complaint of the complainant is having no value in the eyes of law and deserves dismissal. Reply on facts, it is denied that the complainant objected to regarding excess charging against the MRP and answering Ops told that their rates are as per their wishes and not as per MRP as alleged. However, the generation of bill No.7882 is not denied. It is submitted that the answering Ops as per their scheme, had given discount of Rs.405/-, out of total bill of Rs.988/-, but the complainant did not disclose this fact in his false complaint. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as mentioned in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and all other allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect, answering Ops made prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered his affidavit Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the complaint and further, he has proved on record document Ex.C1 copy of original bill issued by the Ops to the complainant qua the alleged items purchased by him and then closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Pankaj Juneja, its Manager, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the written reply filed by the Ops. Further, learned counsel for the Ops proved on record document Ex.R1 i.e. one duly sealed bottle of make Kinley, on which, Rs.25/- has been printed and then closed the evidence. 

5.                Thereafter, the case was fixed for arguments and learned counsel for the complainant argued that Ops have adopted unfair trade practice while the complainant had visited the premises of OP1 with his friends and ordered some eatables alongwith food items. They had also ordered for one bottle of mineral water of brand Kinley 1 Liter and one bottle of cold drink of brand Pepsi 300ml. MRP of the mineral bottle was printed at Rs.20/- and that Rs.18/- was printed on the bottle of Pepsi. Inspite of this MRP duly printed on these bottles, Ops charged Rs.25/- each. Thus, they have charged in excess other than the prescribed rate printed on the bottles. This way, Ops have not only adopted unfair trade practice and they have also violated rule 18(2) of the Legal Meteorology (Package Commodity) Rules 2011 and Section 2(c)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon judgments titled as Zaika Bazar vs. Hemant Goel-2007(2)CPJ-96(Delhi State Commission); D.K.Chopra vs. Snack Bar-2014(2)CPJ-493(N.C.) and Hotel Navtara vs. Kishore Mandrekar-2013(3)CPJ-113(Goa State Commission). Further, argued that the discount given was for the promotion of their own product.

6.                On the other hand, in order to rebut the charges, learned counsel for the Ops argued that MRP on the bottle was mentioned to be Rs.25/- and Ops do not sell any Pepsi bottle as alleged. Rather, Ops sell the cold drink in open glasses and in the present case, the complainant was supplied with 430Ml of Pepsi loose in the glasses. In this way, the allegations levelled by the complainant are not correct. So much so, discount of Rs.405/- was given to the complainant and Rs.583/- were charged inspite of total bill which comes to Rs.988/-.

7.                          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings of the complaint as well as defence taken by the Ops and carefully perused the record on the file. 

 8.                         It is evident that the complainant vide Ex.C1 had purchased some eatables and food items on 17.12.2014 and the total bill worth of Rs.988/- and discount of Rs.405/- was also given to the complainant. Though, it is correct that the complainant was not able to place on record any of the empty bottle so purchased by him from the Ops whereby MRP of the bottle at Rs.20/- and rate of Rs.18/- was printed. However, from the bill dated 17.12.2014, it is evident that the rates charged were Rs.25/- each for both water bottles as well as cold drink and at the same time, the Ops could not produce any bottle with MRP of Rs.25/- which was packed on or before the date of purchase i.e. 17.12.2014. It is also adduced in his evidence with duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA which supported his version. At the same time, the sealed bottle with MRP of Rs.25/- produced by the Ops and after opening the seal, it was found that the said bottle so tendered in the evidence by Ops as Ex.R1, bore the date of packaging to be 25.03.2015, while the complainant had purchased the alleged bottle on 17.12.2014, meaning thereby that the bottle so produced by the Ops was packed 4 months after purchase, which is not tenable. However, as admitted by the Ops that they have sold the cold drink of make Pepsi in loose glasses of 430ml clearly indicates the unfair trade practice as held by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in a case titled as Zaika Bazar vs. Hemant Goyal-2007(2)CPJ-96, vide which, it has been held that “on the face of it a very strange plea has been raised by the appellant that whenever any article is served like this by opening the sealed bottle of water in loose glasses it entitles the service provider to charge any amount. In this reported case, the appellant charged three times the maximum retail price printed on the bottle. Such a practice is all the more highly unscrupulous and unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service as it takes in its fold any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, quantity and nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in relation to any service.”

9.                Similarly, in the present case, selling of cold drink in loose glasses also makes the conduct of Ops more unscrupulous because articles they sold in unsealed or unpacked condition is not according to the spirit of law as selling of cold drink by them is not core activity of Ops. Qua the allegation of the complainant regarding the water bottle can be considered because the Ops have failed to defend the case, rather tried to mislead by producing on record bottle with MRP of Rs.25/- in their evidence which was packed on 25.03.2015 while the purchase of bottle was 17.12.2014 by complainant. Moreover, the Ops have not been able to lead evidence by other documents like Menu Card. However, his complaint qua cold drink provided to them in loose glasses as well as charging for water bottle above MRP succeeds and as such, Ops are found to be indulging in unfair trade practice.

10.                        Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and we direct the Ops to pay compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed at Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

(Sat Paul Garg)                                 (G.K.Dhir)  

Member                                            President

Announced in open Forum

on 10.08.2015

Gobind Ram