O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President.<br /> Petitioner's case is as follows:<br /> Petitioner on 18..9..2006 purchased two sacks of Urea fertiliser and 12 sacks of Factomphos fertiliser from the opposite party bank. The MRP price printed on the sack containing the fertiliser Urea is Rs. 252/- amd on the sack containing factomphos MRP is printed as Rs. 378/-. The opposite party all together received an additional amount of Rs. 105/- than the MRP from the petitioner, so the petitioner prays for the refund of the additional amount received from the petitioner along with cost of the proceedings. <br /> The opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable and is barred by section 69 and 100 of the Co.Op. Act 1969. According to the opposite party, due to intervening factors like transport charges, loading and unloading charge, sales commission, VAT addition and damage costs, they are not able to sell the fertiliers on the printed MRP . The opposite party contented that the reception <br /> of additional amount than MRP is after the decision taken by the governing body of <br /> -2-<br /> the opposite party. The opposite party further contented that the other Co-Op. Banks in the locality are selling fertilisers at a greater price than the opposite party. So according to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. So they pray for the dismissal of the petition with their costs.<br /> Points for determination are:<br /> i) Whether the petition is maintainable or not?<br /> ii) Wheher there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?<br /> iii) Relief and costs.<br /> Evidence in this case consists of the of affidavit filed by the petitioner Ext. A1 and A2 documents MO I and MO II on the side of the petitioner, opposite parties evidence consists of their affidavit filed by them and the Ext. B1 to B12 documents.<br /> Point No. I<br /> The opposite party has raised specific contention with regard to maintainability of the petition. According to the opposite party the dispute is between the member and the society so, the matter has to be adjudicated by the Registrar of Co.Op. Societies and the Consumer fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. We are of the opinion that the said contention of the opposite party is not sustainable because of Hon'ble C.D.R.C, had occasion to discuss identical question in the case of P.M Radhakrishnan Vs. T. Ammukutty & Others, reported in 2005 (2) CPR page 215 categorically stated that section 69 of the co.op. Socieities Act will not take away jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum because, as per section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are not in derogation of the provisions of any other law but in <br /> addition to other laws. So, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has a liberty to file <br /> -3-<br /> petition before the Consumer fora or before the Registrar of Co.Op. Societies. So, the petition is maintainable.<br /> Point No. II<br /> The petitioner produced the sack of the urea fertiliser, manufactured by SPIC company, which is marked as MO I and another sack of Factomfos Fertilizer manufactured by FACT. The said material object produced by the petitioner is marked as MO 2. On MO I and MO II the M.R.P shown is Rs. 252.20 and Rs. 378.56 respectively. The bill showing purchase of the fertilizers from the opposite party on 18..9..2006 is produced and marked as Ext. A1. From Ext. A1 it can be seen that for the purchase of 2 sacks of urea an additional amount of Rs. 25.60 was received by the opposite party and for the purchase of 12 sacks of Factomphose an additional amount of Rs. 78.88 was received by the opposite party. The opposite party's explanation is that they incur more expenses other than the MRP for the sale of the fertilizers. According to them the expenses includes transport charge, loading unloading charge, sale commission, VAT addition and average damage cost etc, but we cannot accept the said contentions of the opposite party. The act of opposite party in overcharging the commodities other than the price shown on the article is an unfair trade practice as defined in the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and as per the provisions of monopolies and restrictive trade practices Act 1969. So, point No. 2 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. III<br /> In view of the findings in point No. 1 the petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for. In the result the opposite party is ordered to refund Rs. <br /> 105/- which is overcharged by the opposite party for the fertilizers purchased and the <br /> -4-<br /> opposite party is also ordered to pay Rs. 750/- to the petitioner as cost of the proceedings. Since there is no evidence with regard to loss and sufferings, no compensation is ordered. The opposite party is also ordered under section 14 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act to discontinue the unfair trade practice and not to repeat the same. The order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of this order.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of May, 2008.