By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The grievances of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant was regularly using Detra Magic Detergent produced by the opposite party for a long time. But recently, the opposite party came to know that the actual weight of the product was lesser than the weight showing on the cover package of the product. The opposite party shown the weight of the product as 210 grams and price is fixed as Rs. 10/-. According to the complainant, when he purchased the products same were weighing only 180 grams and 177 grams each in every piece of detergent as there was shortage of around 30 grams than stated in the printed package of the product. The complainant contacted the opposite party and inquired about the illegal act, but no satisfactory reply was received. It is stated in the complaint that the opposite party is also conducting his business in neighbouring State Karnataka and business turn over covers crores of rupees. The opposite party is doing unfair trade practice and thereby making unlawful profit by reducing the weight of product than prescribed weight in the cover. The complainant also stated that he is preparing to approach legal metrology department against the opposite party. According to the complainant, he is using the product for long period without getting agreed weight of the product. So the complainant claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) from the opposite party as compensation for sufferings of financial loss mental agony and hardship resulted due to the unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party.
2. The complaint is admitted on filed and issued notice to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed version. The complainant filed an interim application numbered as IA No. 10/2023 seeking permission to get a report from Legal Metrology Department of Government of Kerala with regard to the weight of the product sold to the complainant and manufactured by the opposite party.
3. The opposite party contended in the version that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The allegations made in the complaint are denied by the opposite party. According to the opposite party, the complainant is not a consumer. The opposite party denied the contention of the complainant that the complainant is using the product of the opposite party for a long time and recently came to know about the shortage of weight of the product than shown in the cover of the product. The opposite party also denied the allegation of 30 grams of weightage in the product. Than the prescribed 210 grams. The opposite party further denied the allegation of making unlawful profit by doing business in Kerala and Karnataka States. According to the opposite party, the complainant filed a complaint before the Legal Metrology Department, consequently a flash inspection was conducted by the authority. But it was revealed that there was nothing wrong in the business of the opposite party and no shortage of weight in the product was detected. According to the opposite party, the opposite party had not directly sold the product to the complainant. The complainant failed to adduce evidence on the aspect purchase of the product and not mentioned the details of the seller. The complaint is filed to make unlawful profit from the opposite party. There is non joinder of necessary party in this proceeding. The opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
4. The complainant filed affidavit and produced document. But the opposite party did not file affidavit to adduce evidence to adhere with the contention in the version. So the opposite party failed to prove the case and thereby no contra evidence is brought out. So the Commission set exparte the opposite party and evidence of the complainant is recorded. The document produced by the complainant is marked as Ext.A1 document. Ext.A1 document is the copy of bill dated 19/05/2022 issued by MPK Supermarket, Mudur Centre showing the purchase of the product by the complainant. The report filed in the IA No. 10/2023 by the Legal Metrology Department is marked as Ext.C1 document by the Commission. The Commission marked one piece of subject product produced by the complainant as MO.1 and same was examined by the Legal metrology Department.
5. Heard the complainant and gone through evidence adduced by the complainant. After perusal, the Commission considered the following points for adjudicating the matter.
- Whether the opposite party committed unfair trade practice against the complainant?
- What will be ordered as relief and cost of the proceedings?
6. Point No. 1 and 2:-
The grievance of the complainant was that the product manufactured by the opposite party was falsely represented in its quantity as 210 grams on the contrary it was actually found around 180 grams when weighed properly. It has come out in evidence that the complainant has been using the detergent manufactured by the opposite party for a long time. When he recently purchased the detergent of the opposite party from MPK Supermarket, he noticed actual quantity of the product as 180 grams and found shortage 30 grams. The complainant produced the bill issued by the seller of the product and same is marked as Ext. A1 document. The complainant also produced the one piece of detergent manufactured by the opposite party and marked it as MO.1 article. The Commission sent MO.1 article to Legal Metrology Department for inspecting the quantity of the product and consequently a report was filed by the authority before the Commission and same is marked as Ext. C1 document. Ext. C1 document clearly shows that there is shortage of quantity by 30.700 grams. So the Commission can rely upon Ext. C1 document as it stands unrebutted. In the affidavit, it is also stated that the customer care centre phone number of the opposite party was not functioning to attend the complaint of the complainant. Even though the opposite party filed version, there is no evidence to support the contention of the opposite party. The Commission finds that the product of the opposite party purchased by the complainant failed to maintain the prescribed quantity claimed by the opposite party. The act of the opposite party can be amounted to unfair trade practice. The opposite party has violated the right of a consumer with regard to information about actual quantity of the product. The complainant did not adduce any evidence to show the duration of period in which the complainant was using the subject product manufactured by the opposite party. So considering the available evidence, the Commission allows the complaint in the following manner:-
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the act of unfair trade practice committed against the complainant.
- The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as the cost of the proceedings.
- The complainant is directed to take back the MO.1 articles from the office of DCDRC, Malappuram within one month from the date of this order.
The opposite party shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order otherwise the entire amount shall carry 9% interest per annum, from the date of order till its realisation.
Dated this 24th day of April, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1
Ext.A1 : Document is the copy of bill dated 19/5/2022 issued by MPK Supermarket,
Mudur Centre showing the purchase of the product by the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Ext.C1 : Report of Legal Metrology Department.
MO.1 : One piece of detergent soap.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
