CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2015
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 15/12/2014
CC /194/2014
Ravi.C,
Unit Secretary (KCPC),
5/319(1), Ezhava illam,
Durgalane, Puthur, : Complainant
Palakkad
Vs
Manager,
Beverages Corporation Ltd,
Govt.Liquor Shop,
Puthur, Palakkad. : Opposite party
(By Adv.Raghudas.S.G)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
Complainant in this case is an active member of Kerala Consumer Protection Centre. It is a registered society under Puthur Unit. The complainant submits that he had purchased 750 ml II MH Whisky on 20/09/2014 for an amount of Rs.870/-.
He states that opposite party had collected an extra amount of Rs.65/- in excess of MRP. The MRP affixed on the bottle was Rs.805/- whereas the opposite party had collected Rs.870/- from the complainant. The complainant further alleges that the opposite party is doing unfair trade practice and is collecting crores of rupees from the consumers and the opposite party is fixing the price according to his wish and the complainant was asked to purchase the commodity if he likes. Later there was a discussion in the organization about this issue and he issued a notice on 20/10/2014 to the opposite party. Even if the opposite party had received the notice no reply was issued to the complainant. Hence he had approached before this Forum seeking an order to refund the excess amount of Rs.65/- collected towards the commodity along with the travelling expenses of Rs.80/-, and expenses of notice and a further compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and hardship along with Rs.5000/- as cost of this litigation.
The notice was issued to the opposite party for appearance. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version. Opposite party denied all the allegation contained in the complaint. The complaint is neither maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is filed with malafide intentions, inorder to extract undue money from the OP and is only an experimental one without any bonafides so as to tarnish the image of the op. The contention that the purchase of 750 ml of MH Whisky on 20/09/2014 for a price of Rs.870/- is totally denied by the OP. The price is fixed by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (M & M) Ltd, pursuant to the budget passed by the Kerala Legislative Assembly. The notice issued by the complainant was received by the OP and the same was intimated to the head office for further instructions and directions. It was on account of the delay of communication from the head office and it is for that reason the opposite party could not reply in time. Complainant is not entitled to get the compensation and the cost as alleged in the complaint. OP is entitled to get the cost of the proceedings from the complainant and therefore the complaint has to be dismissed with the cost of the opposite party.
Complainant and opposite party filed their respective chief affidavit along with documents. The bottle was produced and was marked as MO1. Ext.A1 was marked from the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 – B3 was marked from the side of the opposite party. Complainant filed questionnaire for which Opposite party had filed answers. Opposite party filed application seeking permission to cross examine complainant and the complainant was cross examined as PW1. Evidence was closed and the matter was heard
The following issues are to be considered.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite
Party?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
ISSUES 1 & 2
We had perused the documents as well as MO1 produced before the Forum. On going through the MO1 it is seen that the MRP in printed on the MO1 is only Rs.805/- whereas from Ext.A1 it is evident that the complainant had paid Rs.870/- towards the price of it. The op had submitted that the price was fixed by the KSBC (M&M) Ltd pursuant to the budget passed by the Kerala Legislative Assembly. The price is controlled by the terms and conditions directed by the Govt. of Kerala and
the opposite party has no control over it. The pre-printed labels will not effect the collection of the revised tax by the Govt. of Kerala in the commodities such as Indian made foreign liquors. The case law produced from the part of the complainant is not applicable in this case. The IMFL are the commodity solely controlled by the Government. So the Government is deciding its tax, cesses etc. The pre-printed labels and the rates will not effect the sale of IMFL its additional tax and cess if any added by the Govt. The op had produced the price list issued by the KSBC (M & M) to its retail shops in the year 2013-2014 and the copy of relevant page of the Kerala Finance Bill 2014. OP had also produced the copy of the order of permission issued from the Govt. of India – Ministry of Consumers Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Dept. of Consumer Affairs Legal Metrology Division dtd. 18/6/2014. On perusing Ext.B3 document it is stated that “Where, after any commodity has been pre-packed for sale, any tax payable in relation to such 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 one or more newspapers and also by circulation of notices to the dealers and to the Director in the Central Government and Controllers of Legal Metrology in the States 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 Legislation: On perusing Ext.B3 document it can be viewed that the op has not committed any breech of law. As per Legal metrology Act Rule 6 (e), retail sale price of the package: provided that for packages containing alcoholic beverages or spirituous liquor, the State Excise Laws and the rules made thereunder shall be applicable within the State in which it is manufactured and where the State Excise Laws and rules made thereunder do not provide for declaration of retail sale price, the provisions of these rules shall apply. Accordingly under chapter 5 of Kerala Abkari Act Sections 17 & 18 which deals with reads as under : duties and taxes related to liquor or intoxicating drugs u/s 18(g) (3) of Kerala Abkari Act, Luxury tax, where there is a difference of duty of excise or luxury tax as between two licence periods, such difference may be collected in respect of all stocks of (IMFL) or intoxicating drugs held by the licensees at the close of the former period.
In the light of the above discussion we are of the view that the pre printed labels will not effect the collection of the revised tax by the Govt. of Kerala in the commodities such as IMFL. The op is conducting the business in accordance of law under the above mentioned provisions. The complainant had filed the above complaint without the proper knowledge of those facts. Hence we are not in a position to attribute deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of October, 2015.
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/- Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1- Original Bill of Rs.870/-dtd 20/09/2014
MO1- Bottle
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1- Copy of the Kerala Finance Bill, 2014
Ext.B2- Copy of the Kerala Finance Bill, 2014
Ext.B3-True copy of letter dtd 18/06/2014 to the MD, KSBC
Witness marked on the side of complainant
PW1-Ravi.C
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost Allowed
No cost allowed.
