Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/196/2023

NIRMAL SINGH JAGDEVA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MORE RETAILS PRIVATE LIMITED THROGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

NIRMAL SINGH JAGDEVA

06 Nov 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	196 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	11.08.2023
Date of Decision	:	06.11.2023

 

Nirmal Singh Jagdeva s/o Ranjit Singh r/o H.No.1071, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh

……Appellant/Complainant

 

V e r s u s

1. More Retails Private Limited through its Managing Director, Skyline Icon Building I 5^th & 6^th Floor, 86/92, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai Maharashtra 400059.
2. More Retails Private Limited through its Branch Manager, SCO No.215, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh. www.moreretail.in&Ors.
3. Fortune Foods Adani Wilmar Ltd. through its Managing Director Fortune House, Nr. Navrangpura Railway Crossing, Ahmedabad 380009, Gujarat, India.

…..Respondents/opposite parties

 

BEFORE:              JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                             MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                            

Present:-              Sh.Nirmal Singh Jagdeva, appellant in person.

                             Ms.Rhishika Srivastava, Legal Officer of respondent no3 (On VC)

                             Respondents no.1 and 2 exparte vide order dated 13.09.2023.

 

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   The complainant has assailed the order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), vide which the consumer complaint bearing no.684 of 2022 filed by him was dismissed by it holding as under:-

 “…There is force in the contention of learned counsel for OP-3 as it is clear from Ex.C-2 that the complainant had purchased “Fortune soya health refined soyabean oil” from OP-2 store @ ₹172/- per one litre pouch against the MRP of ₹195/- whereas the other document (Ex.C-3) having been relied upon by the complainant, issued by the other store i.e. Suresh Provision & General Store, does not give the complete description of the product i.e. batch No., date of manufacture, use by date etc. or the MRP of the pouch except that Fortune Soya packet has been mentioned in the tax invoice (Ex.C-3).  In this manner, the complainant has failed to prove on record if the Fortune Soya purchased by the complainant on 12.7.2022 from another store was the same product which he had purchased from OP-2 and also if the said Fortune Soya was refined oil or some other product being sold by Fortune company. 

Not only this, even it is not clear from Ex.C-3 in which year the said product was manufactured and upto which date it could have been used.  Even it is evident from the photographs (Ex.C-1) that the complainant had purchased “Fortune soya health refined soyabean oil” from OP-2 by getting discount of ₹24/- against the MRP which was embossed on the pouch at that time. Similarly, another document having been relied upon by the complainant, is the copy of advertisement got published by another store in the Times of India newspaper dated 17.7.2022 showing the price of one litre of Fortune Soya oil as ₹150/-, is further of no help to the complainant as the brand/product which the complainant had purchased from OP-2 store is “Fortune soya health refined soyabean oil” whereas the advertisement in Ex.C-4 is of Fortune Soya oil showing the price as ₹150/-. 

Further, when it is clear from the record that OP-2 had not sold the aforesaid product to the complainant by charging excess amount against the MRP, rather OP-2 had given discount of ₹24/- to him, complainant has failed to prove on record that there is any unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the present consumer complaint deserves dismissal...…”

2.           Succinctly stated that on 12.7.2022, complainant visited the OP-2 store for purchase of grocery items including two pouches of Fortune Soya Refined oil.  At that time, OP-2 had charged a sum of Rs.172/- per pouch from the complainant containing one litre of said oil and had issued tax invoice (Ex.C-2). The said invoice also makes clear that OP-2 had charged an amount of Rs.172/- per pouch as total amount of Rs.344/- was charged from the complainant against the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of Rs.195/- each pouch.  On the same day, complainant visited another nearby grocery store in Sector 37 and purchased the same one litre pouch of Fortune Soya Refined oil from Suresh Provision & General Store, Booth No.126, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh, who had charged an amount of Rs.150/- for the said pouch. In this manner, as OP-2 had mentioned the MRP of the pouch as Rs.195/- and had sold the same to the complainant @ Rs.172/- per pouch and at the same time, complainant had purchased the same pouch from another store i.e. Suresh Provision & General Store @ Rs.150, it is clear that the aforesaid act amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, especially when the MRP has not been fixed scientifically by following the guidelines of Govt. of India. Complainant had approached OP-2 for the refund of the amount of Rs.22/- per pouch total Rs.44/- for two pouches which had been charged from him in excess, but, with no result.  On 17.7.2022 complainant came across an advertisement (Ex.C-4) in the Times of India given by another chain of stores namely Modern Bazaar, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh dealing with the grocery items where the price of the same product was shown as Rs.150/- per litre for per pouch. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission.
3.           Opposite Party no.3 in its reply took various objections regarding maintainability of the consumer complaint; that there has been concealment of facts and locus standi etc. On merits of the case, it has been stated by opposite party no.3 that it is a joint venture company incorporated in January 1999 between Adani Group and Wilmar International Limited – Singapore.  It is further alleged that even the complainant had got a discount of Rs.24/- from the outlet and has filed the present false consumer complaint against the OPs.  It is further alleged that the complainant has not expressly provided the basic details of the product purchased from the other store showing batch No., date of manufacture, use by date etc.  Even Ex.1 also indicates that both the products belong to different batch No. and have different dates of manufacture.  The fluctuation in MRP is the standard business practice of edible oil industries. Even the fluctuation of MRP based on international market does not fall under the purview of definition of unfair trade practice.  The consumer is free to explore his option in the competitive market to purchase the products and avail the services. So far as MRP is complied with, AWL (OP-3) has no control over the charging mechanism fixed by the retailer. 
4.           Despite service, none put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties  no.1 and 2, as a result of which, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.11.2022.
5.           In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in his complaint
6.           The contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and numerous documents before the District Commission.
7.           The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties and on going through the material available on record dismissed the consumer complaint, as stated above.
8.           Hence this appeal.
9.           Despite service none put in appearance on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2, as a result they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.09.2023.
10.           We have heard the contesting parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record, including written arguments.
11.           During arguments, the appellant/complainant vehemently contended that by charging an amount of Rs.172/- per pouch containing one litre of said oil, despite the fact that the other vendor sold the same pouch containing one litre of said oil @150/- on the same day and in the same sector,  meaning thereby that an excess amount of Rs.22/- had been received from the appellant/complainant,  the respondents were deficient in providing service and also adopted unfair trade practice, yet, the District Commission fell into a grave error in holding to the contrary and dismissing the consumer complaint. He further submitted that thus the order of the District Commission needs to be set  aside and he be awarded relief, as sought for, in the main consumer complaint.  
12.           On the other hand, Legal Officer of respondent no.3 submitted that the order passed by the District Commission, dismissing the consumer complaint against is liable to be upheld.
13.            To prove his case, the appellant/complainant has placed on record tax invoice dated 12.07.2022, Annexure C-2 having been issued by the respondents no.1 &2 and another tax invoice dated 12.07.2022, Annexure C-3, having been issued by Suresh Provision and General Store, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh,  showing that the pouch of fortune soya oil  sold to him was having different price on the same day and in the same sector. Perusal of Annexures C-2 and C-3 reveals that the opposite parties had charged Rs.172/- for one liter of the said oil, whereas, another vendor namely Suresh Provision and General Store, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh charged Rs.150/- for one pouch of the said oil. Thus, there is a difference  of rate of  Rs.22/- per pouch of the sad oil. It is the case of the respondents that the complainant had been given discount and as such, the variation of price was due to discount given by the one outlet and that too with different batch nos.  We have considered the contentions raised by the Legal Officer of respondent no.3  and are of the considered view that the same does not merit acceptance for the reasons stated hereinafter.

                   It may be stated here that the appellant had purchased two packets of fortune oil; one from respondents outlet located at SCO No.215, Sector 37, Chandigarh @Rs.172/- per pouch of one litre and one from another shop i.e. Suresh Provision and General Store, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh @ Rs.150/- i.e. from the same place/sector on the same day, meaning thereby that excess amount of Rs.22/- was charged by the respondents from the appellant. In our considered opinion, there must be parity of price in goods sold at the same place and on the same day, by different vendors. No reason has been assigned by the respondents, as to   why there was difference in price of the two pouches of oil of same description in the same city/sector and on the same day. Thus, it is proved that the respondents have benefitted themselves by charging excess amount from the appellant which is unjust and inequitable. “Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment” signifies the retention of a benefit by a person that is unjust or inequitable.  Thus, by charging excess amount by the respondents towards the said oil pouch, they adopted unfair trade practice and also by not refunding the excess amount to the appellant despite request made in the matter, they are deficient in providing service.  In our considered opinion, the respondents might have been charging excess amount on the said oil from the consumers, since long, which fact has been highlighted by the appellant and as such, their act and conduct has attracted imposing of heavy penalty against them in the matter.  However, the District Commission fell into a grave error, in dismissing the consumer complaint, while holding to the contrary. 

14.           For the reasons recorded above, this appeal stands partly allowed. The order impugned dated 03.07.2023 passed by the District Commission in consumer complaint bearing no.684 of 2022 is set aside. The respondents no.1 to 3/opposite parties no.1 to 3, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-
    1. To refund to the appellant/complainant the excess amount of Rs.44/- charged from him.
    2. To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant/complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him  and also deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice .
    3. To pay Rs.20,000/- to the appellant/complainant as costs of litigation.
    4. This order be complied with by the respondents no.1 to 3/opposite parties no.1 to 3  within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy thereof, failing which, thereafter they shall make the payment of awarded amounts mentioned above alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default, till realization.
15.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge, forthwith.
16.           The appeal file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the District Commission record by sent back immediately.

Pronounced

06.11.2023

 

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Rg