Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/282/2017

Yogesh Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Bansal

14 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

[1]

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/282/2017
Date of Institution	:	30/03/2017
Date of Decision	:	14/11/2018

Yogesh Jindal s/o Sh. Krishan Jindal r/o House No.3448, 2^nd Floor, Sector 23, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, B-91, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase 1, New Delhi-110064.

2.     Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Corporate Office: 3^rd Floor, Orchid Centre, DLF Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.

3.     Kandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Village Nabipur, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab)-140406 through its Manager.

4.     Jubilant Foods Works Ltd., SCO 13-15, Sector
34-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

[2]

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/283/2017
Date of Institution	:	30/03/2017
Date of Decision	:	14/11/2018

Amit Goyal s/o Sh. Satish Kumar r/o House No.311, Sector 79, Mohali.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, B-91, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase 1, New Delhi-110064.

2.     Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Corporate Office: 3^rd Floor, Orchid Centre, DLF Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.

3.     Kandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Village Nabipur, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab)-140406 through its Manager.

4.     Jubilant Foods Works Ltd., SCO 13-15, Sector
34-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

[3]

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/284/2017
Date of Institution	:	30/03/2017
Date of Decision	:	14/11/2018

Anchal Makkar d/o Sh. Parveen Makkar r/o Room No.220, Girls Hostel, S.D. College, Sector 32, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, B-91, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase 1, New Delhi-110064.

2.     Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Corporate Office: 3^rd Floor, Orchid Centre, DLF Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.

3.     Kandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Village Nabipur, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab)-140406 through its Manager.

4.     Jubilant Foods Works Ltd., SCO 13-15, Sector
34-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                     

 

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Vice Counsel for Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2.
	:	None for OP-3
	:	Sh. J.S. Mann, Counsel for OP-4

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         By this order we propose to dispose of the aforementioned consumer complaints in which common questions of law and facts are involved.
2.         The facts, for convenience, have been culled out from Consumer Complaint No.282 of 2017 titled as Yogesh Jindal Vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
3.         The long and short of the allegations are on 25.2.2017, complainant had a lunch in the restaurant of OP-4 and also purchased a 600 ml. Coca-cola bottle  of the company of OPs 1 & 2 manufactured by OP-3 for which OP-4 issued a bill and charged Rs.60/-(inclusive of taxes). It is the case, complainant, had come to know that in other outlets in the city for the same 600 ml. Coca-cola bottle, MRP was Rs.35/- only (inclusive of taxes).  It is alleged, OPs had floated dual prices for the same quality and product which is in violation of the Monopolistic & Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.  The complainant made the payment under protest. Alleged, the action of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence, the present consumer complaint praying for refund of the amount of Rs.25/- alongwith compensation and litigation expense.
4.         OPs contested the consumer complaint.  Joint reply was filed on behalf of OPs 1 & 2.  Separate replies were filed on behalf of OP-3 and OP-4.  The sum and substance of their replies is, they had not violated any rules in charging Rs.60/- i.e. the MRP printed on the 600 ml. Coca-cola bottle even if in other outlets in the city MRP for the same product is printed as Rs.35/-.  It is permissive under law as the sale made by OP-4 is in the restaurant and not in the open market and the complainant had the choice and he had also taken lunch in the restaurant which provides various facilities.  It is also the case, the relevant Act, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, had been repealed and the new relevant rules had come into force on 1.1.2018 i.e. amendment to Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 made effective from 1.1.2018 while the present complaint is of date 25.2.2017 and on that date there were no Act or Rules which provided dual prices of the commodity prohibited as explained above. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
5.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.         We have heard the learned counsels for OPs 1, 2 & 4 and gone through record of the case.  After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
7.         Admittedly, per pleadings of the parties, and evidence led, it is not the case that OP-4 or say OPs had overcharged the amount of printed price of MRP of 600 ml. Coca-cola bottle. The printed price/MRP of the Coca-cola bottle consumed by the complainant in the food works of OP-4 was Rs.60/- and Rs.60/- was charged. The complainant felt aggrieved that in other outlets MRP for the same beverage was Rs.35/-which amounts to dual pricing.  It is the case, the relevant Act had been repealed.  Even otherwise, its provision has not been highlighted in the pleadings or during the course of arguments which the OPs had contravened. Our attention was drawn to the amendment to Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 which had come into force from 1.1.2018. It aims to regulate pricing of pre-packaged commodities alongwith certain leveling requirement and also prohibits dual MRP.  While the present pertains to 25.2.2017 on which date the said rules were not operative and its operation was prospective and not retrospective so as to grip the noose of law on the acts of the OPs.
8.         We have already referred, complainant had purchased a 600 ml. Coca-cola bottle and also had lunch in the restaurant of OP-4.  The printed price of Rs.60/- i.e. the MRP was charged from the complainant.  No law has been shown vide which the traders or manufacturers were under legal duty to fix the minimum or maximum price of the cold drinks i.e. article of food.  Perusal of the photograph of the bottle (Annexure C-3) shows MRP of Rs.35/-, but, it does not reflect the date, manufacture year, batch number etc. so as to equate it or match it with the purchased bottle (Annexure C-2) of Coca-cola where the MRP was mentioned as Rs.60/-and it was also printed thereon that the same was meant for select outlets only.
9.         The complainant himself opted to have a lunch alongwith the cold drink in the restaurant of OP-4 knowing fully well it would charge the printed price of Rs.60/- on the bottle of Coca-cola.  As per facts averred, it is not a case of deficiency in service as there was no shortcoming or imperfection etc. in the product supplied, but, allegedly dual prices were charged at different places and in different outlets. Before the loose nuts are tightened it was for the complainant to bring the act of the OPs within the defined unfair trade practice which has been referred to under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  A meticulous perusal of the definition of “unfair trade practice”, which is exhaustive in itself, does not show that the act of OP-4 or say of the OPs is covered under the definition of unfair trade practice. 
10.         In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in any of the consumer complaints, mentioned above. Accordingly, the same are hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
14/11/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President