| Final Order / Judgement | Sri A.K.Patra, President - The captioned Consumer Complaint is filed by the complainant named above inter alia alleging Unfair Trade Practice & Deficient service there on the part of OP for charging higher price than MRP displayed on the package containing goods /Liquor sold to the complaint.
- The complainant seeks for an order directing the Ops to render proper service with full refund of Rs.370 i.e the price of the purchased FL and for an award of compensation of Rs.1,00,00/ with cost of this litigation .
- The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant as emerged from the case record is that, complainant purchased liquor having printed MRP of Rs. 370/- but the complainant was charged Rs 400/- for the same and accordingly payments was made through online Transaction Id. T221115164430399932342. Complainant raised objection on such unfair trade practice and when not responded he has issued a pleader notice dt.18/11/2022 asking refund of the price paid for the alleged goods/FL with compensation of Rs 1,000/- but the grievance of the complainant remain unheard caused him financial loss & mental agony .Hence this complaint.
- The OP appeared through his learned counsel Sri. S .K.Panda and filed their written version denying complainant allegation on all its material particulars. It contents that, the complaint averment is ambiguous in nature to the effects that, complainant has purchased the alleged liquor of Rs. 370/- on which date & from which shop is not mentioned so also the complainant has nothing specifically mentioned that, subject goods is purchased from the OP shop. The Op denied sale of subject liquor to the complainant and further submits that, no material placed to show that, there is any seller & buyer relationship between the complainant and Op .It is further submitted that, the complaint is vague in nature as no specific date of purchase ,brand/trade name and no cash memo /bill of alleged purchased liquor is filed to hold that alleged goods was purchased from the FL SHOP No.2 of Junagarh ,Dist-Klahandi .The Op denied received of sale price of the alleged Liquor .It is contended that , the alleged online payment with reference to Id. No. T2211151644399932352 stated their in the complaint petition is no way connected with alleged sale transaction of liquor between complainant rather, no payment made in favour of the OP’s account. The complainant is asked to strict proved of the same .The OP further contended that, the person in whose account price of alleged liquor has been credited is stranger one is a necessary party in this case is not made a party so also, the complainant has not disclosed the date of cause of action which is necessary to decide the issue as to whether this complainant is filed on time as prescribed in the C.P. Act as such this complainant as framed is not maintainable in the eye of law. The Op urged to dismiss this complaint with cost.
- The complainant to substantiate his pleading has filed self attested true copy of the following documents :- (i) copy of pleader notice along with registered post Track Consignment report dt 21/11/2022 towards service of said notice to the Op .(ii) online transaction details vide ID T221115162443O399932352 Debited from *****075 and credited to one Pankaj Kumar 8658655980 Fl Shop 2, (iii) Photo graph of STERLING RESERVE B7 ,(iv) Photo copy of address of FL OFF SHOP no.2 ,(iv) photo copy of a draft complaint ,(v) Photo copy of ADHAR Card of the complainant, (vi) photo copy of Letter No 105 /Ex. dt 02/08/2021 and Letter No. 3678/Ex.dt.05/08/2021 along with required information received under RTI Act from Public Information Officer ,Excise Department as short for by the complainant Laxman Podh under RTI Act .
- During hearing of this complainant the complainant has filled his evidence on affidavit as prescribed under C.P.Act 2019,the averments of which are corroborating with the averments of the complainant petition. The Op also filed the evidence affidavit of one Gobind Prasad Sahu ,the proprietor of the OP FL SHOP 2, averments of which are corroborating with the contents of their written version .No documentary evidence is filed by the Op.
- Heard. Peruse the material available on record. We have our thoughtful consideration on the submission of rival parties present.
- The self attested copy of information received by the complainant from the Public Information Officer ,Excise Department placed on the record contents that, there is a provision in the clause 2.1(15) the Excise Policy 2021-22 that penalty with fine on FL OFF SHOP for non supply of cash memo on consumer demand or charging above MRP to the consumer of Rs 1,00,000/- .Further the clause 4.2.5 (IX) of the Excise Policy 2021-22 that, OS shop would require to include the following in the packet :- (a) Name of the Shop,(b) Date/Month/Year of manufacture of Liquor,(c) Net content,(d) Code number along with identification mark of the shop approved by the Superintendent of Excise, ( e)….x x x x x x x ….(f)…..x x x x…x..
- It is not the case of the complainant that, he has purchased FL from the Op shop and on being asked for cash memo/money receipt it was denied by the Op rather, the complainant has alleged charging of price above the MRP of the good/FL purchased which caused him financial loss & mental agony for which issued a legal notice to the OP is not responded.
- Admittedly, complainant has not stated the date of purchased of the alleged goods /FL so also not mentioned the brand /name of the product. The photo Graph of the packet of the goods/Fl named STERLING RESERVE B7 placed on the record does not disclosed the name of the FL Shop so also not contained any Code Number along with Identification Mark of the Shop being approved if any by the Superintendent of Excise to hold that, subject goods/FL is purchased from the Op/FL Shop 2 ,Junagarh .
- Nothing material placed on the record to hold that, Pankaj Kumar, to whom Rs.400/ is paid online vide ID T221115162443O399932352 Debited from *****075 is the employee of FL Shop 2 ,Junagarh and that, said amount of Rs.400/-is paid towards purchase of subject goods/Fl against its MRP of Rs 370/-. Neither Pankaj Kumar is not made a party nor is he examined in this case to ascertain the truth. No independent witness is examined to proved that, Rs 400/- is paid to the account of the Op through the account Pankaj Kumar against MRP of Rs370/-. Nothing material placed on record to hold that, the complainant has bought the subject goods/FL from the OP FL Shop and nothing proved that, the OP has charged excess price displayed on the goods/package containing subject goods/FL.
- Sec 38 (6) of C.P Act 2019 casts an obligation on the District Commission to decide a complaint on the basis of the evidence brought its notice by the complainant and the service provider. Irrespective of whether the service provider adduce evidence or not, the decision of District commission has to be base on evidence relied upon by the complainant. The onus through is on the complainant making allegation.
- Based on the above discussion this Commission is of the opinion that, the complainant has failed to establish that, he is a consumer of the Op and further failed to establish that, the OP has charged excess price displayed on the goods/package containing subject goods/FL thereby indulged in Unfair Trade Practice or deficient service in any manner .As such this Commission is of the opinion that, the complainant is not entitled for the relief(s) as claimed. This complaint sans merit. Hence, it is ordered.
Order Complaint is dismissed against the OP on contest. However, the OP is directed to affix the rate chart of the liquor available for sale in the conspicuous parts of the retail FL Shop 2, Junagarh so that, customers shall avail FL at MRP/bargain price. No order as to cost. Dictated & corrected by me. President I agree. Member Pronounced in open forum today on this 29 August 2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission .The pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly. Free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet to treat the same as copy of the order receipt from this Commission. Order accordingly Member President. As there are allegations of charging higher rate than MRP of liquor at the FL OFF Shops , we think it proper to communicate an extract of this order to the Superintendent of Excise, Kalahandi though he is not a party in this case and instructed to look in to the matter and , to ensure that, every FL Shop there under his supervising jurisdiction shall have proper rate chart of the product available for sale at the FL Shops is affixed on the conspicuous parts of the respective retail FL Shop and further directed to ensure all such amenities as prescribed & sale of liquor to the consumers at the price fixed by or under prevailing law for retail sale and, to ensure free & fair trade practice in the FL marketing so that consumers interest shall be protected . Report of compliance within 30 days is highly solicited. Order accordingly | |
