| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No.213 of 17-09-2020 Decided on : 11-04-2023 Jatinder Kumar S/o Kartar Chand R/o 25850, Street No.2/9, Amarpura Basti, Tehsil & District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Molson Coors India Private Limited, Bhankharpur, Distt. S.A.S Nagar, (Mohali), Punjab, 140201. Harish Kumar Liquor vendor (Malhotra Group) Street No. 6/5, Sanguana Basti, Naruana Road, District Bahtinda, Punjab, 151001.
2nd Adress Harish Kumar Liquor vendor (Malhotra Group) SCO No.74, Near Mittal Mall, Goniana Road, District Bathinda, Punjab, 151001. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. Mandeep Singh, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. Sachin Sharma, Advocate, for OP No.1 Sh.M.S. Sidhu, Advocate. for OP No.2 ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President The complainant Jatinder Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Molson Coors India Private Limited & anoher (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite party No. 1 is marketer of Thunderbolt premium strong bear and opposite party No. 2 is a liquor vendor under Malhotra Group It is alleged that on 15.07.2020 complainant purchased 2 Thunderbolt Bear and half McDowell's whisky from opposite party No. 2 and paid a total sum of Rs. 660/- out of which Rs. 360/- (Rs. 180/- per bear) were charged for the bear and Rs. 300/- were charged for the half McDowell's whisky and a bill for the same was also given. Later on, complainant noticed that the price printed on the label of the bear is Rs. 148/- beyond which the product cannot be sold by the vendor. The sticker mentioning the price was also not properly pasted and a printed price of Rs. 140/- was clearly visible which shows that the original price of the bear was Rs. 140/ and the tag of Rs. 148/- was pasted just to make wrongful gain. It is alleged that when complainant revisited and asked the vendor to refund the amount, he flatly refused. The price list for bear was also not available at the vendor's shop. The complainant also got served legal notices dated 31.07.2020 & 05.08.2020 upon the opposite parties in this regard, but to no erfect. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.80/- being claim amount and Rs.50,000/- as damages on the account of the mental tension and agony besides Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing separate written reply. The opposite party No. 1 in its written statement pleaded that present complaint is based on vague, misconceived notions and assumptions. The opposite party No. 1 sells its products to the distributors/whole-sellers, who are appropriately licensed by the Concerned Government Authorities of State Excise Department, at a price fixed by the Excise Authorities in terms of Excise Act and Rules as Applicable in the State of Punjab. Thereafter, the distributors/Whole-Sellers send the beer for sale to the vendors/retailers, who are again appropriately licensed by the Concerned Government, at a price which is again fixed by the Excise Authorities in terms of Excise Act and Rules as Applicable in the State of Punjab. Lastly, the retailers/vendors sell the product, i.e. beer at the M.R.P. (Minimum Retail Price) fixed by the Government and printed on the label to the consumer. Therefore, the opposite party No. 1. sells all its products to whole-sellers and through them sells to retailers who are appropriately licensed by the Government Concerned for the purpose and is appropriately licensed for the purposes as stated above. The opposite party No. 1 don't have any control over any of them. It is pleaded that the labels which bear the M.R.P. are approved every year separately for each brand by the Excise commissioner of the State Concerned (in this case the state of Punjab) and the products, i.e. beer is sold with the new labels bearing M.R.P. (Minimum Retail Price) printed on it and approved as per state excise department for every financial year. The rate for the current year for the Thunderbolt Premium Strong Beer 650 ml is also fixed by the State Excise Department vide its order dated 17th April 2020 as Rs. 148/-. Hence, there is no question of the interposition of price by the manufacturer (in this case, the opposite party No. 1) in its product. As far as the interposition of price by the distributors/whole-sellers and vendors/retailers are concerned, the manufacturer has no knowledge about the same as having no control over them. The manufacturer has no occasion for the interposition of price whereas as far as the interposition of price by the distributors/whole-sellers and vendors/retailers are concerned, the manufacturer has no knowledge about same as having no control over them. Therefore, the manufacturer can't be held liable for the interposition of price as alleged. It is also pleaded that by levelling such a false, frivolous and baseless accusation towards the opposite party No 1, which is a multinational company of repute, the complainant has rendered himself liable to be prosecuted for civil as well as criminal defamation in the court of competent jurisdiction. The complainant has approached this Commission with unclean hands and misrepresenting the facts with wrongful intention of wrongful gain from opposite parties including opposite party No. 1. The instant complaint filed by the complainant is merely an afterthought and is filed to harass the opposite Parties and illegally gain from them. Thus, the instant Complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further pleaded that complainant has claimed that he purchased the beer from the opposite party No. 2, therefore, he is not consumer of opposite party No 1, and he is not entitled to any relief from opposite party No. 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant only to injure the goodwill and reputation of opposite party No. 1 even otherwise the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. On merits, the opposite party No. 1 has pleaded that it has no control in any manner, on the transaction between the vendor and consumers regarding the price. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite party No.2 in his separate written statement raised legal objections complaint is not maintainable; complainanant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. It has been pleaded that complainant never purchased any alleged beer bottle or Whisky from the liquor vend shop of the opposite party no.2 on 15.7.2020 and the alleged Bill dated 15.7.2020 was never issued by the opposite party and as such the complainant does not come within the definition of consumer under the 'Act'. The opposite party No. 2 denied that he charged a sum of Rs.660/ from the complainant i.e. Rs.180/ per bottle of Beer and Rs.300/ for Mcdowell's whisky as alleged. It is also denied that the opposite party issued any alleged Bill dated 15.7.2020 in favour of the complainant. The alleged bill was never issued by the opposite party and the same is not pertaining to the opposite party rather the same is result of manipulation. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 also prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 10.9.2020 (Ex. C-9) and the documents (Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-8). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 1-12-2020 of Jaideep Kumar Yadav (Ex. OP-1/1) and photocopy of authority letter (Ex. OP-1/2). The opposite party No. 2 has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 9-11-2021 (Ex. OP-2/1). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. To prove his case, complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit, legal notice and Cash memo (Ex. C-3), photographs of the bottle of Beer (Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-5). On the other hand, counsel for opposite party No. 2 argued that bill/cash memo (Ex. C-3) has not been issued by opposite party No. 2. A perusal of record shows that as per Cash Memo, opposite party No. 2 charged Rs. 80/- more than the printed rate i.e. Rs. 148/- on the bottle of the Beer. It is itself proved from printed rate on Ex. C-4 and the said fact has not been denied specifically by opposite party No. 2. As such, opposite party No. 2 cannot avoid its liability by merely saying that cash memo Ex. C-3 has not been issued by opposite party No. 2. This Commission is of the considered view that present complaint is pending before this Commission since 17-9-2020 and opposite party No. 2 had put in appearance on 16-11-2021 and from 16-11-2021 till date, the opposite party No. 2 has not lodged any complaint regarding forging/manipulation of cash memo Ex. C-3, with any authority. Accordingly, this Commission hold that said Cash Memo Ex. C-3 has been issued by opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 has failed to plead or prove that it has displayed the rate list of all the products being sold outside of its shop. As such, opposite party No. 2 cannot charge the amount more than MRP printed on the bottle of Beer by taking plea that rate is fixed by State Excise Department. The complainant has fully proved business malpractice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2 who overcharged amount of Rs. 80/- from the complainant. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed against opposite party No. 2 only, with directions to opposite party No. 2 to refund the amount of Rs. 80/- received in excess of MRP from the complainant and to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant for mental harassment and litigation expenses. The opposite party No. 2 is further directed to display rate list of all the product being sold by it outside the shop/premises in such a place so that all the customer can easily check rate of products before purchasing the same. The complaint against opposite party No. 1, who is manufacturer of Beer, is dismissed as there is no evidence on record to prove that opposite party No. 1 played any role in overcharging of the amount from the complainant. The compliance of this order be made by opposite party No. 2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced:- 11-04-2023 - (Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
