KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 542/2015

JUDGMENT DATED: 22.11.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 156/2014 of DCDRC, Idukki)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                                     : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 010 represented by its Company Secretary.

(By Adv. A. Ravindranath and Adv. A.R. Remesh)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. K.P. Philip, Kuthukallunkal House, Vellayamkudi P.O., Kattappana, Idukki.

2. The Shop Manager, No. 106020, Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation, Chinnakanal, Chinnakanal P.O., Idukki.

3. The Shop Manager, No. 6021, Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation, Kattappana P.O., Idukki.

4. Ratheesh P.G., Salesman, Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation, Chinnakkanal P.O., Idukki.

5. Shibu P.P., Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation, Kattappana, Idukki.

6. Sajimon K., Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation, Kattappana, Idukki.

7. P.M. Chacko, Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation, Kattappana, Idukki.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

The appellant is the 1^st opposite party in C.C.No.156/2014 on the files of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (for short ‘the District Commission’).

          2.       On 07.01.2013, the complainant purchased 375 ml of Indian made foreign liquor namely, “8 p.m. Excellency”, from the Chinnakkanal outlet of Kerala State Beverages Corporation.  The MRP displayed on the bottle was Rs.165/- (Rupees One Hundred and Sixty Five only).  However, the amount collected from the complainant was Rs.180/-(Rupees One Hundred and Eighty only).  On 08.08.2013, the complainant purchased another bottle of rum namely, “Madeera Rock XXX Rum”, for Rs.280/-(Rupees Two Hundred and Eighty only), even though the MRP on the bottle was Rs.265/-(Rupees Two Hundred and Sixty Five only).  The complainant lodged a complaint before the Legal Metrology Department and they found that the allegation of the complainant was correct.

          3.       The 1^st and the 2^nd opposite parties neither appeared before the District Commission nor filed any version despite the service of notice on them.  In the said circumstances they were set ex-parte.  The opposite parties 3 to 7 filed written version admitting the purchase of the liquor by the complainant.  However, they stated that they sold the Indian made foreign liquor as per the price displayed on a board kept outside the outlet.

          4.       The complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibits P1 to P5 were marked for the complainant, besides identifying MO1 and MO2.  Exhibit R1 was marked for the opposite party.  After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as costs, against which this appeal has been filed.

          5.       Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.  Perused the records. 

          6.       The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation ordered by the District Commission and hence a leniency is to be taken in this regard.

          7.       We have gone through the evidence on record and we are satisfied that the opposite parties 3 to 7 sold the Indian foreign liquor at a price which was more than the price shown as MRP on the bottles. Since the appellant did not file any version, there is absolutely nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant.  Exhibit P4 series would show that the matter was compounded before the Legal Metrology Department, which itself would show that the contention of the complainant is true.  The outlet belonged to opposite parties 1 and 2.  It is evident from the contentions of opposite parties 3 to 7 that they sold the liquor at a price which was more than the price shown as MRP on the bottles, as per the directions of opposite parties 1 and 2.  The price was also displayed on a board kept outside the outlet.  Therefore, there is, no doubt, that there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 in this regard. 

8.       Having gone through the relevant inputs, we are satisfied that the finding by the District Commission that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 does not call for interference by this Commission.  The compensation and the costs awarded by the District Commission also do not appear to be excessive, harsh or disproportionate, warranting interference by this Commission. 

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.  In the circumstance of the case, there is no order as to costs.

The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be given to the 1^st respondent, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement. 

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

                                                                  AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb