Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/81/2023

The Manager ITC Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.Dillibabu & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

Mohamed Ghouse

24 Apr 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  : PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R  VENKATESAPERUMAL          :    MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 81 of 2023

(Against the Order passed in C.C. No.33 of 2022 dated 26.10.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Thiruvallur)

 

Dated the 24^th day of April 2023

 

The Manager,

ITC Limited,

Food Division,

No.18, Banaswadi Main Road,

Maruthi Seva Nagar,

Bangalore – 560 005.                    .. Appellant / 1^st Opposite party.

 

- Vs –

1. P. Dilibabu,

No.2460, 3^rd Main Road,

88^th Street, LIG-II,

M.M.D.A. Maathur,

Chennai  - 600 068.                      .. 1^st Respondent/ Complainant.

 

 

2. Arun Prasath,

Sri Murugan Provision Store,

No.115, Kamarajar Salai,

Manali,

Chennai – 600 068.              .. 2^nd Respondent/ 2^nd Opposite party.

 

 Counsel for Appellant / 1^st Opposite party: M/s. Mohammed Gouse

 1^st Respondent/Complainant                  : Party in person  

2^nd Respondent/ 2^nd Opposite party          : Served called absent

                The 1^st Respondent as complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain directions. The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order, allowing the complaint. Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the 1^st opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt. 26.10.2022 in C.C. No.33/2022.

 

                This petition came before us for hearing finally, today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on Appellant and 1^st Respondent, perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court.

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

        1.  The 1^st opposite party before the District Commission is the appellants herein.

 

        2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that he used to purchase 20 to 25 Marie Light biscuit packets daily to feed the animals for the past three years.   While so, when he purchased the said biscuit packets during the month of December vide invoice Nos.1013, 55381, 53325, 53083, 54252, 53600, 26, 228, 54815, 912, 55036, on opening of all the packets, he found that in 10 packets there are only 15 biscuits instead of 16 biscuits which is also printed in the packet.  So, he contacted the opposite party and questioned about the same.  But the opposite party instead of answering the complainant ridiculed him stating that the complainant is questioning them as though he was cheated by the opposite parties for 10 Crores.   This command caused great mental agony and torture to the complainant.  It is pertinent to note that though loss may be a meager amount to the complainant, the opposite parties by selling one biscuit less in each packet is making a huge profit which is illegal.  The opposite party has fixed 16 biscuits per packet and the price of one packet works out to Rs.10/-.   They are selling biscuit packets all over India.  If they sell 5000000 biscuit packets, which one biscuit less in each packet they will be unlawfully gaining profit in huge volumes.   Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint alleging unfair trade practice and to impose a cost of Rs.100 Crores and Rs.10 Crores towards compensation for mental agony with cost.

 

        3.     Though notice was served, the Appellant/ 1^st opposite party, remained absent before the District Commission and hence on 17.08.2022 he was set ex-parte.  Consequently, the District Commission passed an ex-parte order dt. 26.10.2022 directing the opposite parties, jointly and severally, to discontinue the selling of the disputed Biscuits ‘Sunfeast Light’ in Batch No.0502C36 with the specific endorsement, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

        4.     Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 1^st opposite party, praying for setting aside the order and for a chance to contest the case on merits. 

 

        5. Before this commission, the Learned Counsel for the appellant/1^st opposite party submitted that though the notice was received by the 1^st opposite party but the same was inadvertently misplaced by him.  The moment the notice was retrieved, the appellant / 1^st opposite party had engaged an Advocate to appear in the matter.  But the appellant / 1^st opposite party was not provided a copy of the complaint as well as the documents filed by the 1^st respondent/ complainant and therefore, the appellant / 1^st opposite party was not able to file its written version and was set exparte. The District Commission has passed an order against the opposite parties 1 & 2.   Therefore, the appellant / 1^st opposite party sought to set aside the order of the District Commission and prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

 

 

        6. When the case had come up before this Commission on 24.04.2023, after hearing the submission of appellant and 1^st respondent, this Commission had felt that there is some force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellant/1^st opposite party and therefore in order to give a chance to the opposite parties to agitate their right on merits, was inclined to allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to dispose of the case on merit.   However, considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite parties, in not appearing before the District Commission, we imposed a cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the 1^st respondent. Immediately, the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with by the appellant / 1^st opposite party.    Hence, this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law. 

 

        7. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Thiruvallur in C.C. No.33/2022 dt.26.10.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Thiruvallur for fresh disposal according to law and on merits after hearing both sides.

 The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint on merits within three months after hearing both parties as expeditiously as possible as per law.  

 Both parties shall abide by the order of the District Commission regarding the mandatory deposit already made by the appellant / 1^st opposite party before this Commission.

 

 

 

   R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                                R. SUBBIAH

                 MEMBER                                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

 

KIR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/April/2023