IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of December, 2022
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Sri.K.M. Anto, Member
CC No. 214/2021 (Filed on 23/09/2021)
Complainant : Vinoj Antony, Koottumelkattil House
Mammoodu P.O, Changanassery Taluk
Kottayam District.
Vs
Opposite parties : 1. Branch Manager, Reliance Smart
Kurisummoodu P.O
Changanassery- 686 104
(Adv.Nithin.M.K)
2. Zonal Sales Manager
Reliance Smart Obrol Mall,
Ground Floor, N.H-Bypass
Padivattom, Edappally,
Kochin – 682 024
3. Sales Manager, Reliance Smart
Reliance Industries Limited
Maker Chambers, Nariman Point
Mumbai- 400021.
O R D E R
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
The Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The case of the complainant is as follows: On 07-09-2021 complainant purchased one liter KLF coconut oil and half kilogram of ragi powder from the first opposite party. While he was standing at the bill counter he saw one of his friends at the next counter questioning collection of amount than the MRP. So he constrained to check the bills and found that the price of the coconut oil was printed as Rs.238/- whereas the actual price printed on the cover of the coconut oil was Rs.235/- when it was questioned by the complainant the floor manager of the first opposite party teased and abused him in front of other customers. When the complainant reported the incident to the customer care of the opposite parties they sought 7 days to clear the issue. But till the date of filing the complaint, there was no response from their side. Hence this complaint was filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.3 which is the excess amount collected from the complainant along with Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for the mental agony and further direct the opposite parties not to collect the excess amount from customers than the actual MRP.
Upon notice first and second opposite parties appeared before the commission and filed version as follows;
The opposite party is part of a reputed chain of retail outlets known as Reliance Retail LTD which owns Reliance smart that trades in grocery, stationary, food, utensils, consumables, processed foods, etc. All the goods sold by all the outlets of reliance smart are manufactured only by reputed and established manufacturers.
Reliance smart refuses to deal with the products of any brand that has not established a reputation for themselves in the market for its quality. Thus, reliance smart as a brand has established a reputation throughout the country for selling only good quality products and goods.
It is true that the complainant had visited the first opposite party on
07-09-2021 and purchased one liter KLF coconut oil and half kilogram of Ragi powder. The oil which was sold by the first opposite party is of the rate of Rs.238/- and the value printed on the cover was also of Rs.238/- and all the averments contrary to the same are false.
KLf coconut oil is a reputed oil brand manufactured by KLf Nirmal Industries and which supplies packet and loose oil all over Kerala to wholesalers and retailers including the first opposite party. The MRP value of the coconut oil varies as per the market rate of the raw materials and production cost at the time of manufacturing.
KLF coconut oil had supplied coconut oil to the market with MRP rates of Rs.235/- and Rs.238 the first opposite party sold the packet of KLf coconut oil with MRP 238 to the complainant on his purchase dated 07-09-2021. The opposite parties have not sold the coconut oil with a printed rate of Rs.235/- to the complainant. The photo of the cover of coconut oil with a printed rate of Rs.235/- produced along with the complaint must have been obtained by the complainant through the firm in which he is working as the accountant or from other shops to plot this complaint. The complainant is an accountant of a wholesale and retail firm that deals with all stationary items including all types of grains, flour, oil, etc in and around Changanassery and got serious business loss due to the establishment and well reputation of the opposite parties. The averment that the floor manager made fun of the complainant in front of other customers and asked the staff of the opposite parties to clear him out of the store etc are false. It is true that the complainant had preferred a complaint stating all these facts and the opposite party had tried to clarify the misconception of the complainant but he had sought a huge amount which was denied by the opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
The complainant in support of his contentions tendered his affidavit, copy of the retail invoice dated 07-09-2021 as Exhibit.A1 & cover of the coconut oil as Exhibit A2. On the other hand, opposite parties filed the affidavit of Renish K Nair along with Letter dated 04-07-2022 as Exhibit B1, Tax invoices statements as Exhibit B2 series, and letter issued by the store manager as Exhibit B3.
On the evaluation of the complaint, version, and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so what are the reliefs?
Point number 1 and 2
Brief facts of the case are that on 07-09-2021 the complainant purchased one liter KLF coconad oil and half kilogram Ragi powder vide Exhibit A1 tax invoice from the first opposite party. He had paid Rs.238/- for one litre KLF coconad oil, whereas the MRP of the same was Rs.235/- as per Ex.A2, which was inclusive of all taxes. In this way, the opposite party No.1 charged Rs.3/- extra than the MRP.
The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties stating that the MRP value of the coconut oil varies as per the market rate of the raw materials and production cost at the time of manufacturing. KLF coconut oil had supplied to market coconut oil with MRP rates of Rs.235/- and Rs.238/-. The first opposite party sold the packet of KLf coconut oil with MRP 238 to the complainant on his purchase dated 07-09-2021 and not sold the coconut oil with a printed rate of Rs.235/- to the complainant.
On perusal of the exhibit, A1 tax invoice dated 07-09-2021 we can see that the complainant had Purchased One liter ‘KLf Coconad Pure Coconut oil’ for Rs.238/- and Half kilogram ‘Elite roasted Ragi powder’ for Rs.42.75/- on perusal of exhibit A1 we can see that the first opposite party has round off the total amount as 280.50 instead of Rs.280.75/- Exhibit A2 is the empty pouch of the ‘KLf Coconad 100% Pure Coconut oil’. On scrutiny of Exhibit A2, we can see that the same was manufactured on 17 July 2021 and the date of expiry is 16-08-2022. In exhibit A2 it is printed as Rs.235.00/- upon the cover. Thus it is clear that KLF Nirmal Industries (P) Ltd who is the, manufacturer of ‘KLf Coconad Pure Coconut oil; has fixed MRP for one liter of the same as Rs.235/-.
To prove their case opposite parties produced exhibits B1 to B3. B1 is a letter dated 04-07-2022 issued by the Managing director of KLF Nirmal Industries (P) Ltd on perusal of exhibit B1, we can see that KLF Nirmal Industries (P) Ltd has supplied KLf Coconad Pure Coconut oil (one liter pouch) to the Reliance retail Ltd, Thrissur in the month of July 2021. On going through Exhibit B1 it can be seen that the MRP for KLf Coconad Pure Coconut oil (one liter pouch) which is manufactured on 22-07-2021 to 29-07-2021 was Rs.235/- and which is manufactured from 09-07-2021 to 16-07-2021 was
Rs.240/-. It is pertinent to note that the MRP for KLf Coconad Pure Coconut oil (one liter pouch) which is manufactured on 17 July 2021 is not stated in Exhibit B1. Exhibit B2 series, the tax invoices did not prove the MRP for KLf Coconad Pure Coconut oil (one litre pouch) which is manufactured on
17-07-2021.
As per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2014, no extra amount over and above the MRP, printed on the goods can be charged, even if the same has been sold on discount, as M.R.P. has already been inclusive of all taxes levied on the goods.
It is well settled proposition of law that matters relating to pricing may be adjudicated by Consumer Fora in cases where the price is fixed by law or there is a deliberate or intentional act on the part of the seller of goods to take advantage of a higher price of the goods or there is a price dispute due to unfair trade price as per section 2 (47) (i) of the Act of 2019.
In Standard Automobiles Calicut V/s Syed Ashraf (II (1991) CPJ 626 (Kerala)) where the price of the ignition coil was Rs.75/- inclusive of all taxes, but appellants of that case had sold the coil for Rs.88/- and thus, charging of excess amount was found to be unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants of that case.
In EKO Electronics V/s Saira Mehta (II (1999) CPJ 599 (Punjab)), it was held that overcharging of T.V. price amounts to unfair trade practice.
This matter can be viewed from another angle- the angle showing the intention of the legislature to enact the FSSA 2006 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (in short the Rules). These Rules came into effect on 01.04.2011. Its Rule 18 Sub-Rule (2) makes it very clear that no retail dealer or any other person including manufacturer, packer, importer, and wholesale dealer shall make any sale of any commodity in the packed form at a price exceeding the retail sale price thereof. Under this Rule also, the respondents have no right to sell any commodity at a price exceeding the retail price (MRP) thereof. The legal term; retail sale price ; has been defined under Rule (2) (m) of the Rules, which says that retail price means the maximum price at which the commodity in packaged form may be sold to the consumers inclusive of all taxes.
The opposite parties had not produced any rate list of the KLf Coconad Pure Coconut oil (one liter pouch) which is manufactured on 17 July 2021 and also failed to produce any one litre pouch of the same company to prove that on 17-07-2021 the price was printed as Rs.238/- instead of Rs.235/- and he had charged the same as per the market retail price which was applicable on
07-09-2021 for KLF Coconad Pure Coconut oil (one liter pouch) which is manufactured on 17 July 2021. Moreover, though the opposite parties contended that exhibit A2 was not sold by them they did not produce any pouch or cover of product to prove that all the articles which were sold by them had an identification mark to identify the same as sold by the opposite parties. On the basis of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by selling one liter KLF coconut oil for Rs.238/- to the complainant instead of Rs.235/- which was inclusive of all taxes. No doubt the act of the opposite parties caused much mental agony and hardship to the complainant for which they are liable to compensate. Thus we allow this complaint and pass the following order.
We hereby direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.3/- ie the amount which was charged excess than the MRP to the complainant along with 9% from 07-09-2021 till realization.
We hereby direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of December, 2022.
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1- Copy of the retail invoice dated 07-09-2021.
A2- Cover of the ALF Coconad Coconut oil.
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite parties
B1- Letter dated 04/07/2022 issued by Managing Director of KLF Nirmal Industries (P) Ltd.
B2- Copy of tax invoices series dated 17/08/2021.
B3- Letter of Reliance Retail Ltd.
By Order
sd/-
Assistant Registrar (I/C)
