KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.603/04
JUDGMENT DATED 17.9.2010
PRESENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
Hindustan Lever Limited,
NH-45/A, Vadamangalam,
Pondicherry – 605 102 -- APPELLANT
Reptd. by Authorised Signatory
Joseph Vinod Kumar, Law Officer.
(By Adv.Menon & Pai)
Vs.
Sreenivasan, S/o Chandran, -- RESPONDENT
Chulliparambil House,
P.O.Manalur, Thrissur District.
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER
The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 6th March 2003 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP.No.777/02. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party /Hindustan Lever Ltd. in giving an advertisement in connection with the sales promotion of their product lux soap. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.500/- and refund of the excess amount of Rs.1/- collected from the complainant/consumer.
2. The opposite party was served notice in the said OP.777/02. But the opposite party remained absent. The complainant therein filed proof affidavit Ext.P1 slip issued by the dealer and MO1 wrapper of the lux soap were marked on the side of the complainant. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.500/- as compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the opposite party therein.
3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He also relied on MO1 wrapper of the lux soap and argued for the position that there was no unfair trade practice in publishing the advertisement regarding “Re.1/- off”.
4. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant purchased a lux soap from the retail dealer on a sale consideration of Rs.11/-. The aforesaid purchase is evidenced by A1 slip issued by the dealer. MO1 is the wrapper of the lux soap, which was purchased by the respondent/complainant on 10.11.02. Admittedly, the aforesaid lux soap was manufactured by the appellant/opposite party Hindustan Lever Ltd. It is the case of the complainant that the aforesaid MO1 wrapper would give an impression that the purchaser (consumer) of that lux soap would get Re.1/- off while purchasing the lux soap having the MRP of Rs.11/-. MO1 wrapper would make it clear that the appellant/opposite party Hindustan Lever Ltd, had given the advertisement regarding Re.1/- off on purchase of the said lux soap. It is to be noted that the aforesaid Re.1/- off was published or advertised in a bold (big) letters and the general public will be attracted by the said advertisement regarding Re.1/- off. It is to be noted that on the reverse side of MO1 wrapper, the MRP is printed as Rs.11/-. But in small letters it is written on the reverse side after Re.1/- off in bracket. The way in which the aforesaid advertisement was given would create an impression on a consumer that he will get Re.1/- off on purchase of the lux soap having the MRP of Rs.11/-. In ordinary course, any discount or off will be given from the MRP. So, the aforesaid advertisement given on the wrapper of lux soap during the relevant period would give an indication or impression that a purchaser of that lux soap would get the product at Rs.10/-. But in fact, the dealer of the appellant/opposite party Hindustan Lever Ltd. was collecting Rs.11/- as the price of the lux soap.
5. There was no hindrance for the appellant/opposite party in giving the offered Re.1/- off from the maximum retail price published on the wrapper. There was no necessity for the appellant/opposite party to include the Re.1/- off in the MRP itself. The aforesaid practice followed by the appellant/opposite party would give a clear indication and inference that they were very much interested in misleading their consumers/customers. The way and the manner in which the aforesaid advertisement was published would make it clear that there was some sort of suppression or misleading in giving the said advertisement by the appellant/opposite party. Thus, the Forum below has rightly appreciated the evidence adduced by the respondent/complainant in OP.777/02. The Forum below is perfectly justified in directing the appellant/opposite party to stop the unfair trade practice of giving such a misleading advertisement. The Forum below can also be justified in awarding Rs.500/- by way of cost of the proceedings. In effect, the Forum below has taken a very lenient view in passing the aforesaid order dated 6.3.03. It is to be noted that the Forum below has not awarded any compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant/opposite party. We do not find any sustainable reason or ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below.
6. The appellant/opposite party was ex-parte in the proceedings before the Forum below. Admittedly, the notice in OP.777/02 was served on the opposite party Hindustan Lever Ltd. The notice was served in the address published on MO1 wrapper of the product. It is admitted by the appellant/opposite party that the said notice was served in the aforesaid address. But the appellant/opposite party could not enter appearance because of misplacement of the notice received by the appellant/opposite party. Even if the case of the appellant that the notice served on the opposite party was misplaced is accepted then also the opposite party Hindustan Lever Ltd. could have taken necessary steps to appear in the proceedings before the Forum below in OP.777/02. The materials on record would show that the appellant/opposite party approached the Forum below with IA.341/04 and 342/04 after the lapse of 344 days. It is to be noted that the impugned order was passed by the Forum below on merits. So, the only course, which was available to the appellant/opposite party, was to prefer an appeal from the impugned order passed by the Forum below. More over, no sufficient and reasonable ground is stated for condoning the aforesaid delay of 344 days in filing the application to get the ex-parte set aside. It is also to be noted that no prejudice or inconvenience will be caused to the appellant/opposite party in passing the impugned order dated 6/3/03 inOP.777/02. Thus, in all respects, the present appeal deserves dismissal.]
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below in OP.777/02 is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
s/L
