By Sri. MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. On 06/11/2022 the complainant had purchased two bottles of brandy and one bottle beer from the shop of the opposite party. It is averred that the opposite party had collected Rs.1800/- from the complainant for two bottles of brandy . It is further averred that the MRP shown on the bottle of brandy was Rs. 500/- for each bottle. So it alleged by the complainant that the opposite party had collected an exorbitant amount of 80/- rupees for two bottles instead of its original price of 1000/-. Even though the complainant had challenged the act of the opposite parties but the opposite party adamantly stated that they would sell the product for the price as they wish. It is further alleged that the opposite party had humiliated the complainant. It is averred that the act of the opposite party has caused mental agony, hardship and financial loss to the complainant. So the opposite party is liable to pay compensation otherwise there would be irreparable loss and damage to him. So the complainant has prayed that the opposite party should pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony. The complainant also claimed Rs. 50,000/- from the opposite party as compensation for the sufferings of financial loss.
2. The complaint is admitted issued notice to the opposite party the opposite party appeared and filed version.
3. Opposite party is the Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation is an institution under taken by the government of Kerala. The opposite party contended that the price of the liquor bottles may vary from time to time in accordance with liquor policy of the government. It is admitted by the opposite party that on 06/11/2022 the complainant had purchased two bottles of People’s Choice VSOP Brandy for the price of Rs.540/-. It is also contended that the opposite party had tried to convince the complainant with regard to change in the price. It is stated that the opposite party did not collect any exorbitant amount from the complainant. It is contended that the government of Kerala had permitted the opposite party to sell the product without effecting any price change on the bottles if there was any hike in the price by the government. So the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant and the opposite party have filed affidavits in lieu of evidence. The documents produced by the complainant are marked as Ext.A1 and A2 documents. Ext. A1 document is the copy of bill dated 16/11/2022 issued by the opposite party which shows the price of two bottles of brandy as Rs. 1080/-. Ext. A2 document is the copy of photograph of one bottle brandy purchased from the opposite party by the complainant. The documents of the opposite party are marked as Ext.B1 to B4 and documents. Ext. B1 document is the copy of order dated 23/08/2018 issued by the additional chief secretary to the Government of Kerala stating directing the Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation to sell existing liquors stocks at new MRP rates without printing new MRP on the bottles as per rule 18 (3) and 7 of the legal metrology packaged commodities rules. Ext. B2 document is the copy of order dated 06/09/2022 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala to the Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation permitting to sell existing liqueurs stocks laying at the units and in the pipeline as on 06/06/2022 without fixing new MRP. Ext. B3 document is the copy of letter dated 10/05/2023 issued by Secretary to government of Kerala to the chairman and managing director of Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation permitting to sell existing liquor stocks laying in the units and in the pipe line till 01/04/2023 without fixing new MRP. Ext. B4 document is the copy of letter dated 01/02/2023 issued by Secretary to government of Kerala to the chairman and managing director of Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation permitting to sell existing liquor stocks laying in the units and in the pipe line till 17/12/2022.
5. Heard both sides in detail and the Commission examined documents and affidavits thoroughly. The opposite party submitted notes of argument. In the evaluation the Commission considered following points to adjudicate the matter.
- Whether the act of the opposite party is amounted to deficiency in service?
- Relief and cost?
6. Points No. (i) and (ii)
The Commission is considering both points together for the sake of brevity. The argument of the complainant is that the opposite parties had collected exorbitant amount of Rs. 80/- from him for two bottles of brandy carrying 500 ml each. It is argued that the actual price of single bottle of brandy was Rs. 500/-. It is argued that MRP shown on the bottle was Rs. 500/- . The complainant has produced Ext.A2 document in that regard. In order to substantiate pleadings of exorbitant collection of amount the complainant has produced Ext. A1 document. The complainant has argued that the opposite party had humiliated him when he challenged the act of the opposite party.
7. The opposite party admitted purchase of the liqueur bottles by the complainant. Moreover the opposite party did not challenge veracity of Ext.A1 and A2 documents produced by the complainant.
8. On the contrary the opposite party argued that allegations of the complainant is not maintainable. It is argued that the price of liquor bottles may vary from time to time in accordance with liquor policy of the government. In the case of variations of price the document is the copy of letter dated 10/05/2023 issued by Secretary to government of Kerala to the chairman and managing director of Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation to sell without affecting any price changes on the bottles. So the opposite party is selling liquor to the public at the price fixed by the government. It is argued that the government has permitted the opposite party to sell existing stocks laying at the units and in the pipe line as on 06/06/2022 without fixing new MRP.The opposite party has produced Ext. B2 documents in that regard. Accordingly, the opposite party sold out their stocks the opposite party also produced Exts B1, B3 and B4 documents to substantiate their contentions. So the opposite party has got right to sell liquor bottles for the enhanced price without changing the price shown on the bottles.
9. The gist of the argument of the complainant is that the opposite party collected exorbitant amount of 80/- rupees for two bottles of lacquer and thereby committed unfair trade practice . The complainant molded up his case based up on Ext. A1 and A2 document. It is argued that date of manufacturer of the liquor was in the month of June 2022 as per Ext. A 2 document and there is no evidence to show that the liquor bottles purchased from the opposite party was available in the stock laying at the units and in the pipeline as on 06/06/2022. But the Commission find that there is no merit in the argument of the complainant in that regard. It is envisaged in Rule 18 (3) of the legal metrology (Packaged Commodities ) Rules that ‘where , any commodity is revised , the retail dealer or any other person shall not make any retail sale of such commodity at a price exceeding the revised retail sale price, communicated to him by the manufacturer , or where the manufacturer is not the packer , the packer , and it shall be , the duty of the manufacturer or packer , as the case may be , to indicate by not less than two advertisements in the Central Government and Controllers of Legal Metrology in the State and Union Territories, the revised prices of such packages but the difference between the price marked on the package and the revised price shall not , in any case , be higher than the extent of increase in the tax or in the case of imposition of fresh tax higher than the fresh tax so imposed : PROVIDED that publication in any newspaper , of such revised price shall not be necessary where such revision is due to any increase in , or imposition or , any tax payable under any law made by the State Legislatures : PROVIDED FURTHER that the retail dealer or other person , shall not charge such revised prices in relation to any packages except those packages which bear marking indicating that they were pre packed in the month in which such tax has been revised or fresh tax has been imposed or in the month immediately following the month aforesaid: PROVIDED ALSO that where the revised prices are lower than the price marked on the package , the retail dealer or other person shall not charge any price in excess of the revised price, irrespective of the month in which the commodity was pre – packed’ . The duty is crystal clear from the above said provision the opposite party is empowered to sell the liquor bottle for a hiked price without fixing the new MRP. Ext. B2 document produced by the opposite party would show that order was made to protect the financial interest of government of Kerala and thereby permitted the opposite party sell the existing liquor stock laying at the units and the pipe line as on 06/06/2022 without fixing the new MRP . IT has come out in evidence that the complainant purchased two bottles of liquor only after issuances of Edit. B2 document. The complainant did not challenge veracity of Ext. 2 document. Moreover the complainant was fail to prove that the two bottles purchased from the opposite parties were not part of the existing liquor stocks laying at the units and in the pipe line as on 06/06/2022.
10. The Commission cannot find any irregularities or committal of unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties. The documents produced and marked as Ext. B1 to B6 documents would show that the opposite party is competent to sell the liquor bottles for the price shown in Ext. 1 document .the complainant fail to prove allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service again the opposite party hence complaint is dismissed.
Dated this 27th day of March 2024.
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 and A2
Ext.A1: Copy of bill dated 16/11/2022 issued by the opposite party which shows the
price of two bottles of brandy as Rs. 1080/-.
Ext.A2: Copy of photograph of one bottle brandy purchased from the opposite party by
the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B4
Ext.B1: Copy of order dated 23/08/2018 issued by the additional chief secretary to the
Government of Kerala stating directing the Kerala State Beverages (M & M)
Corporation to sell existing liquors stocks at new MRP rates without printing
new MRP on the bottles as per rule 18 (3) and 7 of the legal metrology
packaged commodities rules.
Ext.B2: Copy of order dated 06/09/2022 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to
Government of Kerala to the Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation
permitting to sell existing liqueurs stocks laying at the units and in the
pipeline as on 06/06/2022 without fixing new MRP.
Ext.B3: Copy of letter dated 10/05/2023 issued by Secretary to government of Kerala
to the chairman and managing director of Kerala State Beverages (M & M)
Corporation permitting to sell existing liquor stocks laying in the units and in
the pipe line till 01/04/2023 without fixing new MRP.
Ext.B4: Copy of letter dated 01/02/2023 issued by Secretary to government of Kerala
to the chairman and managing director of Kerala State Beverages (M & M)
Corporation permitting to sell existing liquor stocks laying in the units and in
the pipe line till 17/12/2022.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER
