Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/684/2022

NIRMAL SINGH JAGDEVA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MORE RETAILS PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

NIRMAL SINGH JAGDEVA

03 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/684/2022
Date of Institution	:	22/07/2022
Date of Decision	:	03/07/2023

 

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

… 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.
3. Fortune Foods Adani Wilmar Ltd. Fortune House, Nr. Navrangpura Railway Crossing, Ahmedabad 380009, Gujarat, India.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	OPs 1 & 2 ex-parte
	:	Sh. Rohit Chandel, Counsel for OP-3.

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Nirmal Singh Jagdeva, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint 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 ₹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 ₹172/- per pouch as total amount of ₹344/- was charged from the complainant against the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of ₹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 ₹150/- for the said pouch. In this manner, as OP-2 had mentioned the MRP of the pouch as ₹195/- and had sold the same to the complainant @ ₹172/- per pouch and at the same time, complainant had purchased the same pouch from another store i.e. Suresh Provision & General Store @ ₹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 ₹22/- per pouch total ₹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 ₹150/- per litre for per pouch. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs  1 & 2 were properly served and when none turned up on their behalf before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.11.2022.
3. OP-3 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of facts and locus standi. It is alleged that in fact the answering OP 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 ₹24/- from the outlet and has filed the present false consumer complaint against the OP.  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.  On merits, facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for OP-3 and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that OP-2 is the retail store from where the complainant had purchased two Fortune Soya Refined oil pouches containing one litre each and had paid an amount of ₹172/- for each pouch (total ₹344/-), as is also evident from Ex.C-2, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if OP-2 had charged an amount of ₹44/- in excess from the complainant and the said act of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the complainant has failed to prove on record that the OPs have charged excess amount from him and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of OP-3.
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the documentary evidence led by the parties on record and for that purpose the same is required to be scanned carefully.
   3. Ex.C-1 are the photocopies of the photographs of the pouches which the complainant is alleged to have purchased from OP-2 which indicates that the complainant had purchased “Fortune soya health refined soyabean oil” and the batch No. and date of manufacture have also been embossed on the same as 10.6.2022 and 17.4.2022.  It is further clear from the photographs that the MRP of both the pouches has been embossed as ₹195/- and ₹199/-.  Ex.C-2 is the copy of the tax invoice which indicates that the complainant had paid ₹344/- to OP-2 as the price of the aforesaid two pouches of oil.  Ex.C-3 is the copy of tax invoice dated 12.7.2022 issued by Suresh Provision & General Store which indicates that one packet of Fortune Soya was purchased for an amount of ₹150/-. Ex.C-4 is the copy of advertisement which indicates that one store (Modern Bazaar) has shown the price of Fortune soya oil as ₹150/- only for one litre pouch.
   4. The learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that the in fact the price of one Fortune soyabean oil was charged by the other store as ₹150/- at the relevant time whereas the complainant was charged ₹172/- i.e. ₹22/- in excess for each pouch of the same product at the same time, the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.
   5. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP-3 contended with vehemence that as the complainant has failed to prove on record the basic details of the other product such as batch No., date of manufacture, use by date etc.  and at the same time it is proved on record that the OPs had given discount of ₹24/- to the complainant against the MRP, the consumer complaint, being false and frivolous, be dismissed with costs.
   6. 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. 
   7. 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/-. 
   8. 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.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 03/07/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member