DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DUMKA

           CC No.19 of 2013

 Sanjeev Kumar Singh ………………………………….. Complainant

V/s

                                                          1.Sri Gouri Shanker Jha   

2.Exice Superintendant, Dumka………………..………....………OP

  14..06.2016                        ORDER

          By filing this complaint, under the provision of The Consumer Protection Act 1986, the complainant has  prayed to direct the Ops  to return the excess price amounting to Rs.50/ only alleged to be realized from the  complainant on purchase Thunder bottle of wine and also to pay Rs.25000/ as compensation. 

         It is said that the OP1 runs a business of Wine shop at village/Mohalla – Kuruwa , Dumka. OP2, Exice Superintendant is the licencing authority to run the business.

             The case of the complainant is that on 7.4.13 the  he went to the wine shop of the Opposite party  and purchased therefrom  5 bottles of bear (Thunderbolt-wine) and paid Rs. 400/- (four hundred) as demanded by the Opposite party no.1. He obtained cash memo against the payment.   on receiving the bottles of beer,  complainant found that maximum   price printed on each bottle  was scribed Rs 70/- only. Thereupon the complainant protested and asked the opposite party1 to return the excess amount Rs.50/realized beyond the maximum printed price. But the OP1 flatly refused  to return the excess amount  by declaring that he was not  bound to sell at the print price. The complainant did however came to his home with the bottles of wine with determination to agitate the matter before the Excise Superintendant, Dumka (OP2). He accordingly visited the Op2 and showed him the cash memo realizing excess amount. Inspite of that the Op2 did not take any action against the shopkeeper (OP1) . Ultimately the complainant preferred this complaint case.

          On notices to the opposite Parties, they appeared and contested the case of the complainant on their versions.         

OP1 in his written version has admitted his running wine shop with valid licence. It is however denied that any cash memo as relied upon by the complainant was issued to against such sale of five bottles of Thunderbolt wine.It is said that the  sale receipt was obtained from somewhere and it is used against this OP1. Regarding visit of the complainant to the OP2, the Excise Superintendant and making  first oral complain of realizing more than maximum price of  per bottle printed threon, it is pleaded that no such complaint was made to the Op2 as per annexture C of OP2. It is further said that the complainant has himself filed copy of letter no.261 dated04.05.2011 issued by the Excise Superintendant in reply to the RTI application of t he complainant in which it is informed that no complaint was made before the E xice Superintendant. It further added that this consumer complaint is not maintainable before this forum because it was necessary for the consumer/complainant to make a complainant before the OP2, Exice Superintendant who is the competent authority to enquire the matter complained and ,if found true, to take proper action. It is further pleaded that the document if any produced by the complainant be not relied upon without proper verification. Signature on the alleged cash memo for Rs.400/ is also denied of the by the  OP1.

             The OP2 in his version as parawise comment has described the procedure of settlement of liquor shops  in 20 groups. The composite  shop of OP1 is said to come under Group no.4 and issued valid licence as per rule in Form D. It is said that sale notification issued by the Department contains several conditions which includes (Condition No.21 ) exhibition of maximum price of all catagories of wine as well which the licencee is required to   follow strictly. In this regard notices are being issued by the OP2 / department time to time to the licencee including the complainant. It is added that when the department got any information of violation of any condition of sale notification or otherwise, inspecting officer institute irregularities report and it to the Excise Superintendant court u/s 42 of the Exice Act. Except some rare cases, the irregularity report is disposed of u/s68 of the Exice Act by imposing fine. In regard to the fact of this case it is denied that the complainant ever made any complain in the office. However it is submitted that the complainant demanded some information on22.04.2011,10.11.2012 and 22.01.2013 which were provided  to him vide letter no.261 dated 04.05.12, 608 dated23.02.2013 and 4224 dated 12.12.2012. It is said that the complainant has not made any complaint before OP2 regarding excess payment in Kurua composite shop on 07.04.2013 for purchasing beer. Annexture C is attached. It is accordingly said that the complainant is not a bonafide purchaser. It is further added in parawise comment that the complainant has not sought remedies from the OP2 and has directly approached to this Forum  and on these version the complaint is prayed to be dismissed.

We have heard the parties and  have gone through the record.

            Original receipt bearing serial no.5152 dated07.04.2013 is filed on behalf of the complainant which describes  Price of beer 5x80 Rs.400/. Registration no.71 and Licence no. 11/2013-2014 and signature of sri Gauri Shankar Jha is also written in same hand.

Besides, the complainant Sanjeeva Kumar has filed his affidavited evidence wherein he has taken oath in support of his version. He has identified the said cash memo by saying that he had purchased the said five bottles of Thunderbolt beer  against which Rs.400/ was realized and receipt of the same amount with same description was given to him. He observed, however , maximum price over the bottle Rs.72/ only which total comes to Rs.360/ and then protested in the matter and demanded back the excess amount Rs.40/ upon which  OP1, the shopkeeper  refused and replied that the wine would not be sold on maximum printed price and he would have to pay the excess. He has further stated that the produced cash memo was obtained by him from the sales man of the shopkeeper after vigorous request/ contest. He has further added that he had made complain in this regard to OP2 who did nothing on his complain. Lastly, having no option he knocked the door of this Forum. He has further added that on previous several occasions, he protested to the excess   prices being realized. But in vain, as there is  said to be illegal nexus in between the OP1 and OP2.

       No evidence is produced on behalf of the Ops. There is although admitted that as per condition no.21 of Sale notification the licencee in the main gate of his licencee premises shall exhibit a signboard specifying the following informations:

        On scrutinizing the version of the oPs ,  we find that there is no specific denial of the maximum retail price of the sold beer as 72. The complainant has  identified and proved the cash memo reciept in his affidavited evidence. On the other hand the OP has not brought any documentary or oral evidence to show that the consumers are being provided cash memo for each sale. We find therefore nothing to  doubt or disbelieve the fact deposed on affidavit  by the complainant.  

 We are therefore satisfied that the OP.1 has realized Rs.40/ against maximum retail price of 5 bottles of thunderbolt beer @ 80 instead of @72/ from the complainant

            For future we  direct the OP1 (Licencee) to issue cash memo for each transaction of retail sale with MRP (Maximum Retail Price )   and to strictly follow the conditions of sale notification no.21 and 24 of the licencing authority OP2.

            So far compensation in the case is concerned, we are conscious that addiction of wine is not a healthy habit and it has to be discouraged at all level. It is in the interest of the society and complainant as well to change his habit as he has deposed that he is a regular consumer of wine. Any cost  awarded to the complainant will encourage him to addiction of unhealthy drink. So we direct the OP1 (Sri Gauri Shankar Jha , the licencee) to pay a sum of Rs.2500/ (two thousand and five hundred) by way of special cost to the local Gaushala committee, Dumka known as “Shree Shree Goushala, Dumka”through Demand Draft/Account Payee Cheque of the award amount with information to this Forum. Out of the said amount, the management/Working committe of the “Shree Shree Goushala, Dumka” shall issue a coupen of 10 (ten) litres of milk   to the complainant who will obtain it at a time or as per his convenience.

  The order shall be complied within 30 days from this date of order.

Let  copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost. One copy be also sent to the Managing Committee of“Shree Shree Goushala, Dumka” for the sake of information only.