BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT
Tmt Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI MEMBER
F.A.NO.98/2016
(Against order in CC.NO.35/2013 on the file of the DCDRC, Thiruvallur)
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021
S. Jayaraman
S/o. Shanmuganadar
No.6/125, 3rd Street,
P.M.Samy colony
R.S.Puram In person
Coimbatore – 64 002 Appellant / Complainant
Vs.
The Proprietor
Margin Free Market
169, G.N.T. Road M/s. I Jesu
Sengundram Counsel for
Chennai – 600 052 Respondent/ Opposite party
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission had dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.26.4.2016 in CC.No.35/2013.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant in person and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:
ORDER
JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT
1. This appeal has been filed as against the order passed by the District Commission, Thiruvallur, in CC.No.35/2013 dt.26.4.2016 in dismissing the complaint.
2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is as follows:
The complainant on 7.6.2013 had purchased Meera Coconut Oil 100 ml., alongwith other products from the opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that a sticker containing the rate of the oil affixed by the opposite party on the bottle of coconut oil in which, the rate was printed as Rs.25.50/-, whereas the amount collected from the complainant by the opposite party was Rs.26.50. The MRP rate fixed by the Meera company was Rs.27/-. Thus the opposite party had collected Rs.1/- extra from the complainant. The act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice. In this regard a notice was issued by the complainant, but there was no reply from the opposite party.
The complainant would further submit that on perusal of coconut oil bottle the date of packing and batch number was printed as 06/12.2006. It is also further printed about the expiry of the oil as “Best before 15 months from packing”. If it is considered so, the date of expiry of oil would be 6.3.2007. Whereas, the oil was sold by the opposite party to the complainant on 7.6.2013, the fact remains that the product was sold after an expiry of six years. Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite party, the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for refund of Rs.26.50 alongwith 12% interest and cost of Rs.2000/-.
3. The said complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing version as follows:
The opposite party did not commit any act detrimental to either Consumer Protection Act or committed unfair trade practice. There are every reason to believe that the complainant would have manipulated the sticker in order to initiate claim to gain unlawful enrichment. The allegation that the coconut oil was sold after expiry date is false, and the complainant is called upon to prove the same very strictly. The bottle was containing a Pkd & Batch No. as 6/12.006 and not as alleged in the complaint. The 15 months expiry time lapses only in September 2013. The product alleged to have been purchased on 7.6.2013 in respect of three items for Rs.84/-. Meera Coconut oil MRP.No.27/- was sold at Rs.26.50/- The said bill contains that Rs.2/- had been saved for the purchase. Moreover the bill was generated at 07.55 p.m and not as alleged by the complainant at 5.35 p.m. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the claim on the side of the complainant, he had filed proof affidavit and 7 documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A7 and on the side of the opposite party 8 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to B8.
5. The District Commission after hearing the submissions on bothsides, dismissed the complaint stating that there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Against the said order impugned, the complainant is before us as an appellant.
6. Before this commission, the appellant appeared in person. There is no representation for the Respondent today. Written arguments of the Respondent already filed. We have heard the submissions of the complainant and perused order impugned, written submissions and documents filed on both sides, and passed the following order:
7. The case of the complainant is mainly on two folds. The first allegation was that the coconut oil was sold @ Rs.1/- extra, i.e, more than the rate fixed by the opposite party themselves.
The Second fold is that on the bottle of the oil the date of packaging and batch number was affixed as 06/12.2006. The date of purchase of the oil was on 7.6.2013. The period of expiry was mentioned on the bottle as “best before 15 months”. Thus the product was sold after an expiry of six years.
8. With regard to the first fold of allegation, the complainant would submit that there was a sticker affixed on the bottle containing the rate of the oil, in which it was printed as Rs.25.50/-. But as far as the invoice raised by the Respondent/ opposite party is concerned the product was sold at Rs.26.50/-, i.e, more than the rate printed on the sticker.
In this connection a perusal of the complaint would show that the complainant himself had stated that the MRP (Maximum Retail Price) as printed in the coconut oil bottle is @Rs.27/-. Therefore, it would not be the case of the complainant that the opposite party had sold the product more than the MRP. Any retailer / seller can be questioned if he sells any product more than the price, fixed by the manufacturer for retail purchase i.e., MRP. In this case the product had been sold @Rs.0.50/- lesser than the price fixed for market rate. The Therefore, reducing the price even less than the MRP is the discretion of a vendor. Thus cannot be questioned as a matter of right. Moreover, the complainant had not produced any proof to show that the price was fixed at Rs.25.50/- by the retailer, i.e., he had not produced the Coconut bottle alongwith the sticker affixed on it, to prove his above stand. The bill produced by the complainant under Ex.A2 also would show that the MRP @ Rs.27/-, and the rate at which they sold the coconut oil was @Rs.26.50/-. Therefore, we do not find any deficiency on the opposite party in this regard.
9. The second fold of the allegation of the complainant is that the product was sold after the expiry date. As per the complainant the PKD & Batch No. was printed as 06/12.2006. Admittedly the product was purchased on 7.6.2013. The expiry also mentioned as “Best before 15 months”. Therefore, the complainant had alleged that the product ought to have been sold before 6.3.2007 but the same was sold after an expiry of six years.
Whereas, a perusal of the documents and the written arguments would show that the Respondent/opposite party had submitted that the PKD & Batch No. was actually printed as 06/12.006 i.e., 6/12 which indicates the month and year and the number subsequently printed as .006 was the batch number. We find some force in the submission of the opposite party. It is also a common knowledge that date of manufacture will not be printed on any product, and only the month and year will be printed. Usually the date of manufacturing will be printed only on the perishable commodities. Therefore, we hereby concur with the findings of the District Commission that the product had not been sold after the expiry date, and the version of the opposite party that the expiry date of the oil would be September 2013.
As per the documents produced by the opposite party, it is seen that the opposite party had replied for the complaint letter sent by the complainant. In their reply, the opposite party while regretting for the inconvenience caused to the complainant, also requested the complainant to bring the product to the opposite party, in order to explain the doubts raised by the complainant. The complainant without approaching the opposite party as requested, had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, before the District Commission.
10. Therefore we do not find any force in the submission of the complainant, and they are only bald allegations, which shows only the malafide intention of throwing mud on the opposite party. Accordingly, by concurring the findings of the District Commission, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order of the District Commission in CC.No.35/2013 dt.26.4.2016. There is no order as to cost in this appeal.
S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI R. SUBBIAH
MEMBER PRESIDENT
