Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/51/2019

Saurabh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Baba Chicken - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sumit Gupta

16 May 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                             COMMISSION

                      FATEHGARH SAHIB

 

Complaint No.	:	CC/51/2019
Date of Institution	:	20/08/2019
Date of Decision	:	16.05.2023

 

Saurabh Sharma aged about 26 years S/o Sh.Suresh Kumar R/o H. No.92 , Sector 2-B, Adarsh Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh & Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.

                                                                                                                     …………....Complainant

                                                Versus

 

1. Baba Chicken , GF-42, Celebration Bazaar , adjoining McDonalds, Khanna Tehsil Khanna District Ludhiana.
2. Baba Chicken , Ishmeet Chowk, Ludhiana ,  Tehsil and District Ludhiana.
3. Ludhiana Beverages private Limited, Unit-ii village Jaspalon , near Doraha Tehsil Khanna , District Ludhiana .

                  

                                                                   ..………....... Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 11 to 14of Consumer Protection Act 1986(Old)

Quorum

Sh. S.K. Aggarwal, President

Ms. Shivani Bhargava, Member

Sh.Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

Present: Sh. Sumit Gupta , counsel for complainant.

                Sh.M.S.Sethi, counsel for OP no.3

              Ops no.1 and 2 Ex-Parte vide order dated 7.10.2019

 

Order By

 

 

 The  complaint has been filed against the OPs (opposite parties) , Under Section 11 to 14 of Consumer Protection Act-1986 (old) alleging deficiency in service with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs  to refund the additional amount  charged by the Ops  and to pay  Rs5,00,000/-  as compensation for harassment.

1. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant ordered 1 plate Kadhai Cheese  and 1 cold drink from OP1 on 31/7/2019 at his home. OP1  delivered at the address of the complainant through its delivery boy and charged Rs.330/- for Kadhai Cheese and Rs.50/- for Coca-Cola cold Drink 750ml exclusive of taxes through invoice  no.2033 dated 31.7.2019.   The M.R.P of the cold drink is Rs.40/- inclusive of all taxes ,  manufactured by OP3.  When the complainant asked the manager for the same, he told that  the rate of the Cold drink bottle is Rs.50/- and they cannot charge less than it.  On 8.8.2019 , the complainant again  ordered Kali Mirch Paneer and cold drink from the OP1 at his home  . The OP1 delivered at the address  of complainant  through its delivery boy and charged Rs.330/- for kali Mirch Paneer and Rs.50/- for Thumbs-up cold drink 750ml exclusive of taxes through invoice no.2254 dated 8.8.2019. The M.R.P of the cold drink bottle is Rs.40 inclusive of  all taxes manufactured by OP3.  In this way , the Ops1,2,3 in connivance   with each other  adopted  malpractices and unfair trade practice by charging the complainant as well as other customers over and above the Maximum Retail Price and also charged double tax.  Hence this complaint.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs through registered Post. OP3 appeared through his  Counsel  and filed  written version. OPs no.1 and 2 did not appear despite service of summons as such OPs no.1 and 2 were proceeded against Ex-Parte for non appearance vide order dated 7.10.2019.  
3. The complaint has been contested by the OP3 and filed written version by raising various  preliminary and legal objections.  The OP3 is the manufacturer of cold drinks.  The MRP  of the Coca Cola  cold drink bottle of 750ML   is Rs.40/- inclusive of all taxes as on 31.7.2019. The MRP  of the Thumbs Up Cold drink bottle of 750ML  is Rs.40/- inclusive of all taxes as on 08.08.2019. All the allegations are related to OPs 1,2.  The OP3 has  never charged alleged additional amount and therefore the question of refund  does not arise at all. The relationship between OP3 and dealer is on principal to principal basis.  The OP3 has not allowed any one to sell their products above the MRP. The alleged dispute , if any  is between complainant and OPs1,2.  OP3  has nothing to do with the same. The OP3 is not liable or responsible for the act & omission of theOPs1,2. ThusOP3 has prayed for dismissal of complaint with  cost.
4. In the support of complaint , complainant has filed Ex.CW1/A his affidavit,  along with documents i.e Ex.C1 invoice  no.2033 dated 31.7.2019,  Ex.C2  photographs of bottle, Ex.C3 invoice  no.2254 dated 8.8.2019, Ex.C4 photographs of bottle and closed his evidence.
5. In rebuttal, OP3 has tendered Ex.OP3/1 affidavit of Sohan Lal Verma vice President (Finance),  Ex.OP3/2 bill dated 2.7.2019 and closed  his evidence.
6. Heard. Entire record has been perused.
7. Admittedly ,  complainant  made online order to OP1 on 31.7.2019 and 8.8.2019 respectively.  Complainant ordered cold drink bottle. The MRP on  each  bottle is Rs.40 inclusive  of all taxes vide Ex.C2 and Ex.C4.  but OP charged Rs.50/- vide Ex.C1 and Ex.C3. OP1 also charged extra GST vide Ex.C1 and Ex.C3.
8.  From the perusal of the record it transpires that OP1 charged more than MRP mentioned on  cold drink bottle and also charged  extra GST. According to Legal metrology (Packaged) commodities Rule-2011. Retail sale price means  the maximum price at which the commodity in the packaged form may be sold  to the consumer inclusive of all taxes.
9. The MRP on a Pre- package product is inclusive of all taxes that can be charged from the  consumer including  the GST. It is also being advertised by Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India to create awareness among consumers that MRP of packaged  product is inclusive  of all the taxes. In any case , retailer  or service provider can  not charge more than MRP mentioned on the product .  It amounts to legal  plunder of double taxation  .  However, such practice is clearly in gross violation of law. Therefore, OP1 is held liable for unfair trade practice .
10.  As a corollary of our above discussion  and keeping in view the facts of the present complaint , the same is hereby partly allowed . Complaint  qua OPs no.2 and 3 is dismissed because  product was sold by OP1.  The OP no.1 is directed as under:-

[a] to refund the amount of Rs.20/- charged extra over M.R.P and Rs.5 charged as extra GST to the complainant along with interest @ 9% P. A from the date of filing of compliant within 30 days, failing which interest @ 12% shall be payable.

         [b] To pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation  and  litigation expenses

Compliance of the order be made by the OP1 within a period of 30 days of receipt of certified copy of this order . Failing which the complainant shall be entitled to recover the above said amount through legalprocess. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period dueto pandemic of Covid-19 and paucity of staff. File be consigned to record Room.

Pronounced 16 May 2023.

                                                           

                                                                 (S.K. Aggarwal)

                                                                      President

                                                                     

    

                                                                             (Shivani Bhargava)

                                                                        Member

 

                                                                             ( Manjit Singh Bhinder )

•                                                                               Member