Haryana

Karnal

212/2011

Parmod Kumar S/o Devi Dayal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Jai Trading Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.R.K. Arora

12 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No.212 of 2011

                                                          Date of instt.: 15.4.2011

                                                          Date of decision: 13.01.2016

 

Parmod Kumar son of Sh.Devi Dayal resident of Sector 8, Urban Estate, Karnal.

.                                                                   ……..Complainant    

                                      Vs.

1.M/s Jai Trading Company, 64, Janta Grain Market, Karnal.

2.LM Foods Rice Millers & Exporters, Nissing, Karnal.

                                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.                

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-        Sh.R.K.Arora Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite parties ex parte.

ORDER:                 

 

                    This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he had purchased 500 Kgs. i.e. 20 bags of 25 Kgs each rice Premium from the Opposite Party  for Rs.13,000/- vide bill No. 1899 dated 27..11.2010.  There was no MRP ( Maximum Retail Price) on the packing bag, whereas  not mentioning of the same on the packing bag was violation of Section 33 read with Section51 of the Standard of Weight and  Measures(enforcement) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).  Due to non mentioning the MRP on the bags of the rice by the Opposite Parties, he suffered mental agony and financial loss.  In this way, the Opposite parties  resorted to unfair trade practice. He claimed compensation for unfair trade practice, mental agony and legal expenses apart from seeking directions to the Opposite parties not to resort to such practice in future.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite parties. They appeared and filed written statement. The Opposite party no.1 raised objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is  estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct and that the complaint is vague and indefinite and does not disclose any cause of action.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that neither the Opposite parties committed any deficiency in services nor resorted to  any unfair trade practice.

 

                   Opposite party no.2 also appeared and filed written statement raising similar pleas as put forth by the Opposite party no.1.

 

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2  to Ex.C4 have been tendered.

 

4.                 The Opposite parties neither led any evidence nor  appeared on 17.11.2015 despite repeated calls, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against them.

 

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.

 

6.                 As per the case of the complainant he had purchased 20 bags of rice Premium each bag containing 25 Kgs. rice, from Opposite party no.1, on 27.11.2010 and it was found that no MRP was mentioned on the packing bags. He has also produced the portion of one packing bag as Ex.C3.On the said packing   bag MRP has not been mentioned.

 

7.                 The Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that not mentioning MRP on the rice bags was violation of Section 33 read with Section 51 of the Act, which amounted to unfair trade practice and as a result of which the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment.

 

8.                 Section 33 of the Act is with regard to provisions of  Standards Act and rules made thereunder regarding commodities in packed form  to apply to commodities  sold by the distributor  within the State.  Penalty for contravention of the provisions of Section 33 has been provided u/s 51 of the Act.  Ex.C4 shows that retail sale price of the packet is required to be mentioned on every package  as per rules of Packaged Commodities Rules 1977. In this way, by not mentioning the MRP on the bags of the rice sold to the complainant, the Opposite parties violated provisions of Section 33 read with Section 51 of the Act and rule 6 of the Packaged Commodities Rules 1977.  According to Section 63 of the Act, no court inferior to that of Metropolitan Magistrate or the Judicial Magistrate of the Ist Class shall try any office punishable under the Act. Therefore, the offence committed by the Opposite parties cannot be tried by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and  proper procedure is to file complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate of the Ist class having jurisdiction of the area. The  act of the Opposite parties of not mentioning MRP on the bags neither amounts to deficiency in services nor unfair trade practice nor restrictive trade practices in any manner. Therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction  to entertain and decide the present complaint.

 

9.                 In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint, hence, the same is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:13.01.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

                     Parmod Kumar Vs. M/s Jai Trading Company and another.

 

 

Present:-        Sh.R.K.Arora Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite parties ex parte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:13.01.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.