Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/5/2015

Snder Paul Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pepsico India Hlding Pvt - Opp.Party(s)

in person

23 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                         Consumer Complaint No.05 of 2015

                                                                Date of institution:  21.01.2015       

                                                               Date of decision   :  23.09.2016

Sunder Paul Goyal son of Durga Charan Goyal, resident of House No.201, Sector 4-D Shastri Nagar, Mandigobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Mobile No.98140-26102.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.  C FRITO LAY,  Divn. No.1 Village Channo, Sangrur Road, PO Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur 148026 Punjab through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. More Quality Ist Aditya Birla Ratain limited, Bassi road, adjoining Mahesh Hospital, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib mobile No.98146- 58600.

 

 …..Opposite parties

     

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President          

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member           

         

Present :      Sh. A.K. Gupta, Adv. Cl. for the complainant

                Sh. Damandeep Singh Adv.Cl. for OP No.1.      

                Sh.Sanjeev Chopra, Adv.Cl. for OP No.2.

 

 

 

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant, Sunder Paul Goyal son of Durga Charan Goyal, resident of House No.201, Sector 4-D Shastri Nagar, Mandigobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.              The complainant purchased one packet of Uncle Chips Spice Treat weight 60 grams for Rs.20/-, vide Retail Invoice/ CM No.2048059498 dated 15.01.2015 from OP No.2. The price of the same is written on packet as Rs.20/- for 60 grams, but it is also mentioned on the said packet "10 grams extra". So the actual price of Uncle Chips is Rs.20/- for 60 grams. It is also mentioned on the said packet that "Super Saver 20% Extra/Save". As per printing on the packet of Uncle Chips the price of the same is Rs.20/- for 60 grams not for 50 grams. Then, how it can be said that OP No.1 is giving Super Saver 20% Extra on the said packet of uncle chips. The complainant asked the salesman/manager of OP No.2 to receive the price as per weight of 50 grams, out of the price i.e. Rs.20/- being the written price of said Uncle Chips but he refused to do so.  The mentioning of the words " 20% extra" makes it clear that the price of the Uncle Chips should be 10 % less out of Rs.20/-. The OPs are hereby adopting unfair trade practice and OP No.2 had charged from the complainant because the said Uncle Chips packet was to be sold at the less rate 20%. It makes clear that the alleged price of Rs.20/- for 60 grams had already been reduced for 10 grams. There is mis-advertisement by OP No.1 only to increase their sale. The complainant made complaints to the OPs regarding their mis-advertisement but OPs did not listen the genuine requests of the complainant. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund 20% out of Rs.20/- as actual excess price received by OP from the complainant and further to pay Rs.19,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

3.              The complaint has been contested by the OPs.  In its reply OP No.1 took certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is wholly false, frivolous and vexatious having been filed mischievously with a malafide intention;  the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. As regards to the allegations of the complaint, OP No.1 stated that it has not charged anything extra from the complainant, infact the complainant is trying to blackmail OP No.1 through the present complaint. It is further stated that in the present case the complainant has failed to prove on record that whether any loss or injury has actually been suffered by him and in the absence of the proof of actual loss or injury due to the negligence of OPs the complaint deserves to be dismissed. It is further stated that OP No.1 sells its products by fixing a specific price for the same by considering various factors of its cost, further more if the OP mentions 20% extra for a specified amount then its actual weight. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying the other allegations made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             In reply to the complaint OP No.2 stated that it has merely sold the product in question to the complainant with the scheme launched by OP No.1. The M.R.P. of the said product was fixed by OP No.1 at Rs.20/- and it has increased the weight of the product to 60 grams by giving 10 gram extra weight.  Thus, OP No.2 has sold the product to the complainant at Rs.20/- only. The complainant is benefited once by availing this additional extra weight and, as such,  there cannot be any double benefit to the complainant on the purchase of said product, which is allegedly demanded by the complainant in the present complaint.  There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. After denying the other averments made in the complaint it prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

5.             In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, retail invoice Ex. C-2, attested to be true copy of letter dated 25.05.2012 Ex. C-3, original sample/product Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Nidhi Sudan Ex. OP1/1, true copy of authority letter Ex. OP1/2 and closed the evidence. OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Manjit Singh, representative Ex. OP2/1, copy of authority letter Ex. OP2/2 and closed the evidence.

6.             The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the main controversy involved in the present case is that the OP had mis-advertised the product by not giving the discount of 20% on Rs.20/- as stated on the product. He pleaded that the MRP mentioned on the product was Rs.20/- for a packet of uncle chips treat weight 60 grams.  It is mentioned on the said packet "10 grams extra".  It is also mentioned on the said packet that " Super Saver 20% extra/save". So the actual price of Uncle Chips is Rs.20/- for 60 grams not for 50 grams. The Ld. counsel further pleaded that the OP was bound to charge 20% less on an amount of Rs.20/- for 60 grams, thus it indulged in unfair trade practice.

7.             On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 objected to the submission made by the ld. counsel for the complainant. He stated that the price of Uncle Chips Spicy Treat was mentioned as Rs.20/- for 60 grams and not for 50 grams as it was mentioned on the said packet that super saver 20% extra of 50 grams. The same is also evident from the package placed on record by the complainant. Learned counsel pleaded that the OP cannot charge more than the MRP, printed on the packing of the product with a particular quantity contained in the packet and the same is established from the product packing. The ld. counsel placed reliance on the Legal Metrology(Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, wherein "Retail Sale Price" means the maximum price at which the commodity in packaged form may be sold to the ultimate consumer and the price shall be printed on the package in the manner given below;

'Maximum or Max. retail price Rs……../rs…….inclusive of all taxes or in the form MRP Rs……./rs……… incl., of all taxes after taking into account the fraction of less than fifty paise to be rounded off to the preceding rupee and fraction of above 50 paise and up to 95 paise to the rounded off to fifty paise'.  The ld. counsel argued that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed being frivolous with special costs.

8.             The ld. counsel for OP No.2 stated that OP No.2 has no role with regard to misleading advertisement and he has been impleaded as party, only for the sake of jurisdiction. The OP No.2 has merely sold the product of Uncle Chips Spicy Treat weight 60 grams to the complainant with the scheme launched by OP No.1. The MRP of the product for 60 grams was fixed by OP No.1 at Rs.20/- and has increased the weight to 60 grams by giving 10 grams extra of 50 grams. Thus he prayed for dismissal of the present complaint qua OP No.2.

9.             After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find force in the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for OPs. It is established from the package of product(Ex. C-4) that the MRP of Rs. 20/- was for the product weighing 60 grams and not 50 grams. Hence, it is proved that 10 grams was extra quantity over and above 50 grams.  In our opinion OPs can only be held guilty for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, in case OPs were charging more than the printed price and quantity i.e more than the MRP for a particular mentioned quantity. The complainant has miserably failed to prove on the basis of material placed on record, that the OPs were charging more than the MRP or had given any misleading advertisement with regard to the MRP and weight. 

10.                    Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we find that the OPs have not indulged in any kind of unfair trade practice as the complainant was not charged more than the MRP for the mentioned quantity printed on the package of the product. Hence the present complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. Parties to bear their own costs.              

11.                    The arguments on the complaint were heard on 09.09.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:23.09.2016

                                                                                (A.P.S.Rajput)

                                                                                President

 

(Veena Chahal)

Member