Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/4/2015

Sunder paul goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mondelex India Food Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

in person

23 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                         Consumer Complaint No.04 of 2015

                                                                Date of institution:  21.01.2015                 

                                                                Date of decision   :  23.09.2016

Sunder Paul Goyal son of Durga Charan Goyal, resident of House No.201, Sector 4-D Shastri Nagar, Mandigobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Mobile No.98140-26102.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Mondelex India Food Ltd. Unit No.2001, 20^th Floor, Tower-3(Wing C) Indiabulls Finance Centre, Parel Mumbai 400 13, through its Manager/authorized Signatory.
2. More Quality Ist Aditya Birla Ratain limited, Bassi road, adjoining Mahesh Hospital, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib mobile No.98146- 58600.

 

 …..Opposite parties

     

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President             

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member              

Present :      Sh. A.K. Gupta, Adv. Cl. for the complainant

Sh. Rajmat Singh Adv., Sh.Satinder Singh, Adv., Sh. Ashim         Aggarwal, Adv. for OP No.1.    

                Sh.Sanjeev Chopra, Adv.Cl. for OP No.2.

 

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant, Sunder Paul Goyal son of Durga Charan Goyal, resident of House No.201, Sector 4-D Shastri Nagar, Mandigobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.              The complainant purchased one packet of 5 Star Home Treat weight 200 grams for Rs.130/-, vide Retail Invoice/CM No.2048059500 dt.15.01.2015 from OP No.2. The price of the same is written as Rs.130/- and price of Rs.150/-, which written on the packet has been cut/crossed.  So the actual price of the product is Rs.130/-. It is also mentioned on the said packet that the amount of Rs.20/- is off/save.  It is further stated that the actual price of the product is Rs.130/- not Rs.150/- then how it can be said that OP No.1 is giving off/saving of Rs.20/- on the said product.  The complainant asked the salesman/Manager of OP No.2 to deduct Rs.20/- out of the price i.e. Rs.130/- being the written price of said product but he refused to do so. The mentioning of the words "Rs.20/- off" makes it clear that the price of the said product should be Rs.110/- only. The OPs are adopting unfair trade practice and have charged Rs.20/- extra from the complainant.  The amount of Rs.150/- has already been cut/crossed by the OPs, as such, the complainant was entitled for deduction of Rs.20/- from the actual price i.e. Rs.130/-.  There is                   mis-advertisement by OP No.1 only to increase their sale. The complainant made complaints to the OPs regarding their mis-advertisement but OPs did not listen the genuine requests of the complainant. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund Rs.20/- as the excess price received by the OPs and further to pay Rs.19,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

3.              The complaint has been contested by the OPs.  In its reply OP No.1 took certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is gross abuse of the process of law; The present complaint is false, frivolous, misconceived and vexatious in nature and has been filed with the sole intention of harassing the OPs and no cause of action qua OP No.1 ever arose to file the present complaint. As regards the allegations of the complainant, OP No.1 stated that the price of 5 Star Home Treats was written as Rs.130/- and Rs.150 was cut/crossed and Rs.20/- was off. Hence, as Rs.20/- was off, the price of Rs.150/- was crossed out and Rs.130/- printed as MRP.  It is not understood how the complainant is arriving at price of Rs.110/-.  The complainant got the product for Rs.110.50 i.e. less than MRP of Rs.130/-, hence, there appears to be no cause of action to file the present complaint.  Nothing has been produced on record by the complainant in support of his vague allegations. It is further stated that allegation of excess charge is against OP No.2 only, as such, name of OP No.1 ought to be dropped from the case as there is no relationship between OP No.1 and OP No.2, who is a mere re-seller and not an agent of OP No.1. It is further stated that at no point of time the complainant was in any manner compelled to buy the said product by any of the OP, at the price offered by OP No.2, being the ultimate seller of the said produce and OP No.2 was at its prerogative to offer the product for sale to its customers at any price below the printed M.R.P. which in present case was Rs.130/-. Thus, the complainant if not satisfied with the price so offered by OP No.2 could simply have not bought the said product from OP No.2. It is further stated that the 5 Star Home Treats is a new product launched only in November, 2014 and it was only due to such reason that Rs.20/- off promotion was introduced. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. After denying the other averments made in the complaint it prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.             In reply to the complaint OP No.2 stated that it has merely sold the product in question to the complainant with the scheme launched by OP No.1. The M.R.P. of the said product was fixed by OP No.1 at Rs.150/- and it has reduced the price of the same to Rs.130/- by giving Rs.20/- off.  Thus, it has sold the product to the complainant at Rs.130/- only. The complainant is benefited once by availing this additional discount and, as such, there cannot be any double benefit to the complainant on the purchase of said product, which he is allegedly demanding from the OPs in the present complaint.  OP No.2 is not aware about how the complainant has mentioned that the actual price of the product is Rs.110/-. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. After denying the other averments made in the complaint it prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

5.             In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, retail invoice Ex. C-2, attested to be true copy of letter dated 25.05.2012 Ex. C-3, original sample/product Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence true copy of documents i.e. letter Ex. OP1/1, affidavit of Mr. Asheesh Gupta Ex. OP1/2, power of attorney Ex. OP1/3 and closed the evidence. OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Manjit Singh, representative Ex. OP2/1, copy of authority letter Ex. OP2/2 and closed the evidence.

6.              The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the main controversy involved in the present case is that the OP had mis-advertised the product by not giving the discount of Rs.20/- as stated on the product. He pleaded that the MRP mentioned on the product was 130/- as Rs.150 was crossed and OP No.1 had promised a discount of Rs.20/- but the OP charged Rs.130/- and did not give the promised discount. The ld. counsel further pleaded that the OP was bound to charge a sum of Rs.110/- and OP charged a sum of Rs.130/-, thus it indulged in unfair trade practice.

7.             On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 objected to the submission made by the ld. counsel for the complainant. He stated that the price of 5 Star Home Treats was mentioned as Rs.130/- and Rs.150/- was cut/crossed and Rs.20/- was off. Hence, as Rs.20/- was off, the price of Rs.150/- was crossed out and Rs.130/- printed as MRP and the same is also evident from the package placed on record by the complainant. Learned counsel pleaded that the OP cannot charge more than the MRP, printed on the packing of the product and the same is established from the product packing. The ld. counsel placed reliance on the Legal Metrology(Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, wherein "Retail Sale Price" means the maximum price at which the commodity in packaged form may be sold to the ultimate consumer and the price shall be printed on the package in the manner given below;

'Maximum or Max. retail price Rs……../rs…….inclusive of all taxes or in the form MRP Rs……./rs……… incl., of all taxes after taking into account the fraction of less than fifty paise to be rounded off to the preceding rupee and fraction of above 50 paise and up to 95 paise to the rounded off to fifty paise'.  The ld. counsel argued that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed being frivolous with special costs.

8.             The ld. counsel for OP No.2 stated that OP No.2 has no role with regard to misleading advertisement and he has been impleaded as party, only for the sake of jurisdiction. Thus he prayed for dismissal of the present complaint qua OP No.2.

9.             After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find force in the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for OP No.1. It is established from the package of product(Ex. C-4) that the MRP is Rs.130/- and Rs.150/- was cut/crossed and Rs.20/- was off. Hence, it is proved that Rs.20/- was off from the price of Rs.150/-. In our opinion OP No.1 can only be held guilty for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, in case OP No.1 was charging more than the printed price i.e more than the MRP. The complainant has miserably failed to prove on the basis of material placed on record, that the OP No.1 was charging more than the MRP or had given any misleading advertisement with regard to the MRP. 

10.           Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we find that the OPs have not indulged in any kind of unfair trade practice as the complainant was not charged more than the MRP mentioned on the package of the product. Hence the present complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. Parties to bear their own costs.              

11.           The arguments on the complaint were heard on 09.09.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:23.09.2016

                                                                                (A.P.S.Rajput)

                                                                                President

 

(Veena Chahal)

Member