Haryana

Ambala

CC/266/2017

Sanjeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Big Bazaar - Opp.Party(s)

Representative

29 Oct 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.        : 266 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 28.07.2017

                                                          Date of decision    : 29.10.2018

 

 

Sanjeev Kumar  aged 44 years s/o Late Jamadar Singh, resident of Plot  No.12, New Gobind Vihar, Ambala City, Haryana 134003.

    ……. Complainant.

 

 

Big Bazaar (Future Retail Limited). Minerva Complex,  Plot No.180/123, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt, Haryana-133001.

 

 ….…. Opposite Party

 

Before:        Sh. D.N.Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

                   Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

                            

Present:        None for complainant.

 Sh. Tushar Gautam, counsel for Op.

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had visited the Big Bazaar store in Ambala Cantt, Haryana on 20^th July. The complainant had purchased consumer consumable items listed in Annexure, Annexure 2 & Annexure 3. The complainant got awareness about the MRP of the items purchased through Jago Grahak Jago advertisement published in the India Express. The advertisement has been published in public interest by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India. The advertisement in it is self explanatory. The advertisement is about the MRP of Unsold Pre-packed Commodities After implementation of GST. Unfortunately the items purchased by the complainant do not comply the notification issued by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs. Legal Metrology Division dated on 04^th July, 2017. The notification has been implemented by the Government of India from 1^st July 2017 to 30^th September 2017. The items purchased by the complainant from the OP do not mention the revised sale price. Hence, the present complaint. 

2.               Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement and has taken the preliminary objection that present complaint is not maintainable and bad for non-joinder & mis-joinder for the necessary parties. On the merit OP is submitted that the OP is big shopping Outlet where the prices of goods are feeded in computer systems which are scanned at the time of billing vide their bar code, however, if any mistake occurred due to some technical problem, the OP correct it when it comes to the notice of the OP. They further stated that OP has followed all the regulations of the government. The MRPs are as per the latest regulation of the Government. So, there is no deficiency on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-13 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit as Annexure RW-1/A and closed his evidence.

4.                We have heard both the counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                It is proved on the file that the complainant had purchased some consumerable items from the OP Annexure C-1 i.e. copy of bills of Aloevera and he also placed on record photograph of that product as Annexure C-2. The complainant had also purchased another items i.e. Kissan Jam-Mango & Cheese vide bill dated 20.07.2017 Annexure C-3 and also placed on record photograph of cap of bottle of such jam and cheese as per Annexure C4, C-5, C6 & C-7. Similarly, he had purchased third item of three packet of biscuits as per Annexure C-8 and also placed the photograph of its wrapper on record Annexure C-9. The complainant also tendered the notification dated 04.07.2017 (Annexure C-10) issued by  Department Consumer Affairs, Government of India, Legal Metrology Division sent to the  Controller of Legal Metrology Division of all States and UTs regarding declaration of retail sale price(MRP) to be made by way of stamping  or putting sticker or online printing after complying  with the following conditions:-

(i)      The difference between the retail sale price originally  printed on the package and the revised  price shall not,  in any case, be higher than the extent  of increase in the tax if any, or in the case of imposition of fresh tax, such fresh tax, on account of implementation of GST Act and Rules.

(ii)     The original MRP shall continue to be displayed  and the revised price shall not overwrite on it.

(iii)    Manufacturers or packers or importers shall make atleast  two advertisements in one or more newspapers in this regard  and also by circulation of notices to the dealers and to the Director of Legal Metrology  in the Central Government  and Controllers of Legal Metrology in the States and Union Territories, indicating the change in the price of such packages.

2.       Further, it is clarified that under sub-rule (3) of rule 6 of the Legal Metrology (Packed Commodities) Rules, 2011 “for reducing the Maximum Retail Price (MRP), a sticker with the revised lower MRP (inclusive of all taxes) may be affixed and the same shall not cover the MRP declaration  made by the manufacturer  or the packer or importer, as the case may be, on the label of the package”.

3.       It is also clarified that any packaging material or wrapper which could not be exhausted by the manufacturer or packer or importer prior to 1^st July, 2017, may be used for packing of material upto 30^th September, 2017 or till such date the packing material or wrapper is exhausted, whichever is earlier, after making corrections required in retail sale price (MRP) on account of implementation of GST by way of stamping or putting sticker or online printing”.

6.                From the perusal of the bills i.e. Annexure C-1, C-3 & C-8, it is mentioned the MRP and also has mentioned the GST of State & Center as per notification i.e. Annexure C-10 it is mentioned  that State  in  exercise of powers conferred by Rule 33(1) of Legal Metrology (Packed Commodities) Rules 2011, the Central Government permit the manufactures or packers or importers of pre-packed commodities to declare the changed retail price(MRP) on the unsold stock prior to 1^st July 2017 after  inclusion of the increased amount of tax due  to GST if any , in addition into the existing retail sale price(MRP), for three months w.e.f. 1^st July 2017 to  30^th September 2017(Annexure C-10). As per notification, it is the duty of manufactures, packers or importers have to mention the revised sale price of their product alongwith the original sale price of such products. They are also duty bound to make atleast two advertisements is one or more newspapers  in this regard and also by circulation of notices to the dealers and to the Director of Legal Metrology in the Central Government and Controllers  of Legal Metrology in the States  and Union Territories, indicating  the change   in the packages.

7.                In the present case, the complainant has failed to make the necessary party i.e. manufacturer/packers/importers of the products as per notification. This Forum cannot direct for implementation of the said notification without impleading the proper party i.e. manufacturer/packer /importer. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable for want of not impleading the necessary parties and same is hereby dismissed with no order to cost. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 29.10.2018

 

 

 

 

          (Pushpender Kumar)          (Dr. Sushma Garg)             (D.N. ARORA)

                   Member                      Member                                    President