Orissa

Cuttak

CC/286/2023

Shakti Prasad Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sumitra Samal - Opp.Party(s)

self

17 May 2024

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                               C.C.No.286/2023

 

Mr. Shakti Prasad Mohanty,

s/o: Pradyumna Kumar Mohanty,

At:CDA Sector-11,Plot No.1D/134,

                     Cuttack-753014.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.        Sumitra Samal(Proprietor),

Jhanjirmangala IMFL Off Shop,

At: Jhanjirmangala,Badambadi,Cuttack

 

2.       Krishna Das (Proprietor),

Buxibazar IMFL Off Shop, Near Blue Lagoon Hotel,

                  TelengabazarP.S:Purighat,Cuttack-753009.

 

3.       Urmila Behera(Proprietor),

Saikhbazar IMFLOff Shop,

Near Chandimandira,Saikhbazar,

PO:Chandini Chok,Cuttack-753002.

 

4.        Ajit Kumar Biswal (Proprietor),

Satichaura IMFL Off Shop,

Near Satichaura Chhaka,

                P.O: Chandinichowk,Cuttack-753002.                        ...Opp.Parties

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    10.05.2023

Date of Order:  17.05.2024

 

For the complainant:             Self.

For the O.P no.1        :            Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.2 & 4:             None.

For the O.P no.3       :             Mr. S.Behera,Adv. & Associates.      

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased McDowell’s No.1 Whisky of Nip size from the O.Ps on different dates and had paid the consideration amount through online to each of them.  The complainant had purchased from O.P no.1 on 4.4.2023 one Nip of McDowell’s No.1 Whisky bottle for a price of Rs.190/-.  He had purchased from O.P no.2 on 16.4.2023 two number of Nips of McDowell’s No.1 Whisky bottles for a price of Rs.380/-.  He had also purchased from O.P no.3 on 14.4.23 one number of Nip of the McDowell’s No.1 Whisky bottle and on 16.4.23 again one number of Nip of the McDowell’s No.1 Whisky bottle by paying @ Rs.190/- for each of those two bottles.  The complainant had also purchased the same liquor from O.P no.4 and had paid Rs.190/- in the similar manner.  The complainant noticed that each of the said McDowell’s No.1 Whisky bottles reflect the MRP printed therein for a price of Rs.170/- but each of the O.Ps had collected from him a sum of Rs.190/- per bottle while selling him without any justification.  The complainant could know that he has been cheated @ Rs.20/- per bottle by each of the said O.Ps.  He has thus filed his case before this Commission seeking direction to the O.Ps in order to compensate him towards his mental agony and harassment by paying him a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and also to pay him a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards his litigation expenses.  He has also prayed through his petition for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has annexed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Out of the four O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not preferred to file written version within the mandatory period and contest this case, O.P no.2 has been set exparte vide order dated 30.09.2023 and similarly O.P no.4 has also been set exparte vide order dated 16.10.2023. Though O.Ps no.1 & 3 have contested this case, they have filed their separate written versions here in this case .

          As per the written version of O.P no.1, the price charge of liquor are fixed by Odisha State Beverages Corporation Ltd. and the O.P has no role therein.  According to O.P no.1, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant has not made Odisha State Beverages Corporation Ltd.  who is a necessary party to be a party in his case.  The O.P no.1 has liquor license for off-shop.  The O.P no.1 admits to have sold the complainant one Nip of McDowell’s No.1 Whisky bottle for a price of Rs.190/- but he has denied that he had charged from the complainant an extra amount of Rs.20/- and that same is more than the printed price as available on the bottle.  According to the O.P no.1, the complainant had purchased the product on 4.4.23 and on the said date the price of the said liquor in question was of Rs.190/- and was not Rs.170/- as alleged.  In this regard the O.P no.1 had drawn attention to the notification of the Odisha State Beverages Corporation Ltd. vide no.1047/OSBC/928 dated 31.3.23 wherein the Odisha State Beverages Corporation Ltd. had directed to Excise Commissioner,Odisha in order to implement new MRP of liquor with effect from 1.4.23 as per the Excise policy for 2023-24.  The said notification indicates the new MRP list of all the liquor and beverages which has been increased therein.  It is further urged by O.P no.1 that the complainant had purchased his liquor product on 4.4.2023 and he was charged Rs.190/- for the said liquor bottle instead of the printed MRP of Rs.170/.  According to the O.P no.1, the printed MRP on the bottle is endorsed by the manufacturer company and not by the O.P no.1, the seller of the product.  It is further urged by O.P no.1 through his written version that at the time of purchase of the said liquor bottle, the complainant was intimated about the new pricing policy of the Govt. which has been effected from 1.4.23 onwards and that the said notification of the Odisha State Beverages Corporation Ltd. has been affixed in the front side of the liquor shop of O.P No.1 thereby reflecting the new liquor rates as per the Govt. notification for the knowledge of the customers.  It is thus urged by O.P no.1 through it’s written version to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainant it being not maintainable.

          Alongwith the written version, the O.P no.1 has annexed copy of the said notification dated 31.3.2023 of Odisha State Beverages Corporation Ltd. by marking the same as Annexure-A.

          According to written version of O.P no.3, the case of the complainant is not maintainable since because the complainant had purchased a bottle of McDowell’s No.1 whisky on 14.4.2023 from O.P no.3 by paying a sum of Rs.190/- whereas the MRP on he bottle was printed to be of Rs.170/- because of the notification of the Odisha State Beverages Corporation Ltd.  It is urged by O.P no.3 that the Odisha State Beverages Corporation Ltd. being a necessary party to this case, the complainant has failed to make him a party.  The O.P no.3 had affixed the notification of Odisha State Beverages Corporation Ltd. on the wall of his liquor shop in order to apprise the customers about the enhancement of the liquor rates effective from 01.04.2023 onwards.  Thus, according to O.P no.3, the case of the complainant needs to be dismissed.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of the O.Ps no.1 & 3, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

 

Issues no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no. ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, written versions, written notes of submissions as filed from both the sides as well as the copies of documents available in the case record, it is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased McDowel No.1 Whisky Nip bottles from the O.Ps on various dates by paying a sum of Rs.190/- per bottle.  It is admitted fact that each of the said liquor bottles as purchased by the complainant had MRP printed to be of Rs.170/- on each of it.  The complainant alleges that the O.Ps had cheated him by taking Rs.20/- extra on each of the said bottles those which he had purchased.  Per contra, O.P no.1 has urged through his written version that as per the notification dated 31.3.23 of the Odisha State Beverages Corporation Ltd., direction was issued to the Excise Commissioner,Odisha for implementing the new rate of liquor with effect from 1.4.23 onwards as per the excise policy 2023-24.  The said notification reflects the new price list for selling the liquor bottles to the customers which also reflects the new price of McDowell’s No.1 Whisky which was previously sold @ Rs.170/- is to be sold @ Rs.190/- after 1.4.23 onwards.  The O.P no.1 had apprised the complainant about the same when the complainant had gone to his shop for purchasing the said liquor bottle.  Moreso, it is the contention of both O.Ps no.1 & 3 that they had affixed the said notification of the Odisha State Beverages Corporation Ltd. at their respective shop walls for the knowledge of the customers and that they had also apprised the customers accordingly.  They have also urged that the complainant when had gone to purchase liquor, he was also apprised about the new rate as per the notification of the Odisha State Beverages Corporation Ltd. which was effective from 1.4.23 onwards.  A copy of the said notification has been annexed together with the written version of O.P no.1 vide Annexure-A.  The complainant has no say about the same which has been filed by O.P no.1 in this case.  The complainant has also not challenged the versions of O.Ps no.1 & 3 that when he had gone to purchase liquor bottles he was made to understand about the new rate effective from1.4.23 onwards of the Odisha State Beverages Corporation Ltd. issuing direction to the Excise Commissioner,Odisha,Cuttack for its implementation as per the excise policy 2023-24.  Thus, keeping the facts and circumstances of the case in mind, this Commission finds that there is absolutely no deficiency of service on the part of any of the O.Ps and that they have also not practised any unfair trade.  Accordingly, this issue goes against the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against O.Ps no.1 & 3 and exparte against O.Ps no.2 & 4 and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 17^th day of May,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

 

                                                                               Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                       President

                     

 

                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                             Member