ORDER

(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):

This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by the appellant-opposite party No. 1 against the order dated 04.08.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 223 of 2014.  By the impugned order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant-opposite party No. 1 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and also directed the appellant-opposite party No. 1 to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with the District Forum towards fine within one month from the date of order.  

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had purchased three 100 Pipers Deluxe Blended Scotch Whisky bottles on 19.05.2014 from the shop of opposite party No.1 and paid Rs. 3,540/- according to the MRP, which was printed on the bottles, but the shopkeeper of the shop did not accept the said amount and asked for Rs. 3,900/- for three bottles of 100 Pipers Deluxe Blended Scotch Whisky, which was excess from the MRP. According to the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 overcharged Rs. 120/- per bottle from him, which was unfair trade practice.  So the complainant has filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.

3.       The opposite party No. 1 had filed his written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the consumer complaint was not filed on true facts.  A price tag of Rs. 1,300/- was tagged on each bottle and was sold according to the tag price.  No extra money was charged from the complainant.  So the consumer complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed. 

4.       The opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 have filed their written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that in favour of revenue benefit, an order was issued by Excise Department that in the Financial Year 2014-15 all the old stocks of English Whisky/Wine will be sold according to the new price by sticking new price sticker, as the new english whisky/wine was not in the stock.  So in the Financial Year 2014-15, the said three bottles of 100 Pipers Deluxe Blended Scotch Whisky, which was purchased by the complainant, were permitted to sell @   Rs. 1,300/- per bottle instead of Rs. 1,180/- per bottle.  So the consumer complaint filed by the complainant is baseless.

5.       The District Forum on an appreciation of the material on record, has allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 04.08.2014 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 1-appellant has filed the present appeal.

6.      Sh. Ashok Dimri, learned counsel for the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Sh. Gopal Narson, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 are present.  We have heard the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before this Commission that the District Forum has not passed a reasoned order dated 04.08.2014.  The Fora below has overlooked all the evidences provided by the opposite parties.  The District Forum has not considered the rate list, which was published by the office of Commissioner, Excise Department, Uttarakhand, Dehradun (paper No. 16/5 on the District Forum’s record). The District Forum did not focus on the receipt and how can anyone give the receipt more than its printed MRP. The District Forum in its judgment has mentioned that there is no date on the notification issued by the Excise Department, while all the evidences were provided before the District Forum. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the case. 

8.      There is no dispute regarding the purchase of the said three 100 Pipers Deluxe Blended Scotch Whisky bottles by respondent No. 1 from the shop of the appellant on 19.05.2014.  The only dispute is regarding MRP of the bottles, whether the appellant had sold these bottles on old MRP or after pasting new tags of MRP wrongly. 

9.      The respondent No. 1 has alleged that the appellant has charged more than MRP.  Respondent No. 1 has filed his affidavit alongwith copy of cash memo, which is hand written, annexure No. 1 (paper No. 13/4 on the District Forum’s record) and photograph of 100 Pipers Deluxe Blended Scotch Whisky as annexure No. 2 (paper No. 13/5 on the District Forum’s record). In his affidavit, the respondent No. 1-Sh. Namit Sharma has stated that if any notification issued by the Excise Commissioner that balance stock should be sold by tagging new price also comes under unfair trade practice. The respondent No. 1-complainant has also filed an affidavit of Sh. Gaurav Thakur in support of his contention (paper Nos. 14/1 to 14/2 on the District Forum’s record). 

10.    On the other side, the appellant-opposite party No. 1 has filed written statement alongwith copy of letter dated 01.04.2014 of Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun to all the District Excise Officers, Uttarakhand (paper No. 11/4 on the District Forum’s record) and an order dated 15.05.2014 issued by the office of Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun (paper No. 11/5 on the District Forum’s record).  The opposite party No. 2-District Excise Officer has filed his objections alongwith copy of letter dated 01.04.2014 of Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun to all the District Excise Officers, Uttarakhand (paper Nos. 12/1 to 12/2 on the District Forum’s record).  The appellant-Sanjay Kumar Saini has also filed his affidavit (paper Nos. 19 to 22) in the appeal alongwith letter dated 01.04.2014 of Excise Commissioner (paper No. 23) and an order dated 15.05.2014 issued by the office of Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun (paper No. 24).  In his affidavit, the appellant has stated that his employee has sold the said bottles according to the notification circulated by the Excise Commissioner vide letter dated 01.04.2014.  The bottle was tagged with MRP Rs. 1,300/-.  Further he stated that if they have charged more than MRP, i.e. Rs. 1,180/- why they issued a bill of Rs. 3,900/-, i.e. Rs. 1,300/- per bottle.  A sticker was tagged according to the Government notification, which was torn by the respondent No. 1 to take the benefits because the respondent No. 1 is in the legal profession. He further stated that at that time the printer of the computer was not working, therefore, hand written bill was provided to the respondent No. 1.

11.    So far charging of Rs. 1,300/- per bottle from respondent No. 1-complainant is concerned, the appellant has categorically stated in his affidavit that he had sold these bottles on the basis of letter dated 01.04.2014 of Excise Commissioner on the prescribed cost.  Sticker of Rs. 1,300/- each were labelled on the bottles for which he had provided a hand written cash memo to the respondent No. 1.  We perused the said cash memo, therefore, it is admitted to the appellant that he had sold three bottles of 100 Pipers Deluxe Blended Scotch Whisky for a sum of Rs. 3,900/-, i.e. Rs. 1,300/- per bottle for which a cash memo was provided to the respondent No. 1.

12.    We have gone through the letter dated 01.04.2014 of Excise Commissioner, which indicates that in continuation of circular of the State Government dated 31.03.2014, MRP of different types of whisky are decided and the new rate of 100 Pipers Deluxe Blended Scotch Whisky of 750ml bottle is Rs. 1,300/- per bottle from 01.04.2014 upto 31.03.2015. We have also gone through the letter dated 15.05.2014 of Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun of which copies were sent to all the District Magistrate of Uttarakhand and all the District Excise Officers and Excise Inspectors.  From the perusal of this letter dated 15.05.2014, the Excise Commissioner has clarified that previously rates of liquor, i.e. whisky, bear, wine etc. were revised upto 30.04.2014 and it was allowed to sell these items on revised rates after labelling of stickers of new MRP.  Further it is clarified that after 30.04.2014 the stock of wine, whisky, bear etc. remained in stock, therefore, it is extended for three more months in Financial Year 2014-15 that these items, i.e. whisky, wine, bear etc. can be sold after labelling of sticker of new MRP.  Therefore, it is very much clear that the appellant had sold three bottles of 100 Pipers Deluxe Blended Scotch Whisky for a sum of Rs. 3,900/-, i.e. 1,300/- per bottle.  Though photograph of bottle (paper No. 13/5 on the District Forum’s record) shows that the MRP of a bottle is only Rs. 1,180/- on 19.02.2014, but from perusal of the order dated 15.05.2014 of Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun and letter dated 01.04.2014 regrading enhancement of MRP, rate of 750ml 100 Pipers Deluxe Blended Scotch Whisky was Rs. 1,300/- per bottle, which was charged by the appellant from the respondent No. 1. The appellant had provided specific cash memo to the respondent No. 1, which shows that the appellant has come with clean hands before this Commission and he had sold these three bottles of 100 Pipers Deluxe Blended Scotch Whisky according to the MRP fixed by the Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun vide letter dated 01.04.2014 and order dated 15.05.2014. 

13.     The District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer complaint per impugned order, which cannot legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.  As such, the appeal is fit to be allowed.

14.     For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment and order dated 04.08.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside and the consumer complaint No. 223 of 2014 is dismissed.  No order as to costs.