Date of filing    :   07-05-2014

                                                                     Date of order   :   29-12-2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                             CC.90/2014

                      Dated this, the   29^th  day of  December   2014

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                         : PRESIDENT

SMT.K.G.BEENA                                          : MEMBER

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL                               : MEMBER

Sudeesh.K.K, Kunnachery Veedu,                                  : Complainant

Kottamala.Po, Narkkilakkad, Kasaragod.Dt.

(In Person)

1 Manager, Supplyco Sabari Super Market,                   : Opposite parties

  Vellarikkundu.

(In Person)

2 Assistant Manager, Supplyco, Kanhanagd.

                                                                        O R D E R

SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER

            Complainant is alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties, as opposite party No.1 charged higher price than the MRP shown on the packet of 1 litre Sabari Coconut oil on 5-5-2014.  Eventhough the complainant  met opposite party for clearing his doubts regarding price,  was reluctant to disclose anything to him.

2.         Opposite party No.1 filed version admitting the facts of the case.  But it is not willful or deliberate.

            The rate of price of each products  sold through the outlets under Supplyco  varies in each month according to the price in the open market.  There is a committee for determining the price of the products and they fix the price and send the price bulletin to each outlet in the beginning  of every month.  That renewed price is installed in computers and charged from consumers.  In supermarket consumers are getting the chance to select the products.  The packet choosen by the complainant belongs to old stock.  Since the MRP rate was lower than the bill price.  Though it was the starting of  month there was rush in the shop and opposite party No.1 did not get time to observe the MRP rate on the packet.  When the complainant came back with the bill   and packet, opposite party No.1 apologised and  expressed his willingness to give the difference in price rate.  But the complainant was not ready to accept the same.

4.         Complainant is examined as PW1.  Exts. A1 & A2 and MO-1 marked.  Heard.

            The question raised for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service  or unfair trade practice on the part of

      opposite parties?

            2. If so what is the relief?

5.         Issues 1 & 2:  The brief facts of the case of the complainant is  that he purchased  1litre Coconut oil from opposite parties outlet on 5-5-2014 for Rs.153/-, but the MRP shown on the packet was Rs.145/-.  Complainant in his way to house noticed the same and went back to opposite party No.1.  The doubt of the complainant is reasonable, there is nothing on record to prove how opposite party No.1 handled the doubt of the complainant.  Complainant deposed before the Forum that opposite party No.1 instead of clearing the doubt of the complainant behaved in a rude manner.  The misbehaviour of opposite party No.1 instigated the complainant to give this complaint.  This complaint is in the nature of a  social issue as well as public interest.  As  per the CP Act 1986 charging higher price than the MRP rate amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  The Forum appreciates the attitude of the complainant in questioning such illegal acts.  Ext.A2 is a paper cutting produced by the complainant, shows the negligence of opposite party No.1 as they forget to lock the outlet after the days business went home without locking the shop.  These facts shows the irresponsibility of the opposite parties.  Due to the irresponsible acts of opposite party No.1 complainant sustained monetary loss and mental agony which has to be compensated.  The Forum convinced that it is a mistake committed by opposite party No.1 personally.  Hence opposite party No.1 is personally liable to compensate the same.

            In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant Rs.8/- with a compensation of Rs.1500/- with a cost of Rs.500/-.  Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

 Sd/-                                                                 Sd/-                                         Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1.5-5-14 Bill issued by Opposite party No.1 to complainant for an amount of Rs.153/-

A2. Manorama News paper dt.17-8-2014 page 11 & 12.

MO-1.

PW1. Sudeesh.K.K.

Sd/-                                                                                       Sd/-                                                      Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

PJ/                                                                                                          Forwarded by Order

                                                                                                          SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT