DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
…………………………………….
Presents:-
1.Sri P.Samantara, President.
2.Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
3.Smt.S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 29th day of June 2016.
C.C.No.28 of 2014.
Debasis Biswal, son of Rama Chandra Biswal, Resident of Malpada,
Bolangi r Town, P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1. Foreign Liquor “OFF” shop, Pro. Aswini Kumar Mund.
At/P.O-Agalpur, P.S.Loisingha, Dist- Bolangir.
2.Superintendent of Excise,Blangir,At/P.O/Dist- Bolangir.
3.Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance)
Bolangir Unit, At –Tulasinagar, Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv.for the complainant- None.
Adv.for the O.P.No.1- Sriprakash Mishra
Adv.for the O.Ps 2 & 3 – None.
Date of filing of the case-01.05.2014.
Date of order -29.06.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
In brief the complainant purchased three bottles of 8000 strong bear from Foreign liquor ‘OFF’ shop near Agalpur,Bolangir on dt. 13.04.2014 against payment consideration of Rs 285/- vide money receipt No.142 from the licensee- Aswini Kumar Mund, TIN-21071804257.
2. The petitioner complained, the 8000 strong beer bottle MRP is Rs 68/- per bottle as the print label reveals. On dt.24.04.2014, it is stated the irregularity has been intimated to the O.P.1 but no action has been taken.
3. The liquor off shop at Agalpur usually sales the liquor in more than printed price and MRP. The salesman demands money in each bottle sold and even not issue cash memos or hangs rate chart as per the rule. Selling in more than MRP price is deficiency of service and breach of standing guidelines, which is clear cut an Unfair Trade practice, thereby a fault under the consumer protection Act 1986. Complainant made reliance on money receipt and affidavit.
4. Pursuance of notice O.Ps appeared and filed their version in too deferred dates. The O.P.1 submitted in his version in admission that the court has jurisdiction in the matter and the dispute in question. Further admitting that O.P.1 is the license holder of the foreign liquor ‘OFF’ shop and selling different brands of bear to the consumer.
5. But contended on dt.13.04.2014, the sale proceed of three bottles of 800 strong bear has not been purchased from his shop. The money receipt filed by the complainant was fabricated. No knowledge on the transaction effected and allegation of selling liquor in high price is false. No unfair trade practice has been committed and above all there is no cause of action and the case is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with cost.
6. The O.P.2 filed the version on dt.06.08.2014 in mingle with an investigation report. In admission that the salesman sold the bear bottles to the petitioner in absence of Manager in charge of the shop and licensee. The MRP of the Maikal 8000 bear is Rs 94/- as fixed as per rate chart supply by the Odisha State Beverages Corporation Ltd for the year 2014-2015.The In-charge Sub Inspector Excise directed to the manager-in-charge of the shop to return the excess payment to the petitioner immediately and also directed to the all licensee of I.M F.L.”OFF” shop of the district to sale liquor and bear a printing MRP on the bottles..Any violation of notice in this regard action will be taken against them as per Excise law.
7. O.P.3 not appeared or made any version.
8. Heard the complainant and O.Ps. Perused the materials available on the record.
9. We observe, the complainant has already enclosed the money receipt No.142 dt.13.04.2014 and same reflection also speaks Aswini Kumar Mund is the licensee, retaining TIN No.21071804757 which is admitted fact by the O.P besides the issued money receipt.
10. On the first instance, the O.P.1 played hide and seek in receiving the notice by denials and even avoid the directions, orders and NBW in playing truant and lastly the notice is effected by help of the local police station by dasti process and in presence, securing the salesman/Manager to receive. So it is evidential sales has been effect on the dt.13.04.2014 and price has been received to the Rs 285/-.
11. The O.P.1 also denies the receipt is manufactured or fabricated one. In this context repeated directs/orders have been passed to place documents in original, such as books of receipt for the last one year, Original license certificate, price list by the Odisha State Beverages Corporation Ltd and above all license personal appearance. On the question total employees in the shop original TIN No etc. but it is deliberately deferred, failed and making laugh at the laws of land in a genuine case and willful defaulted.
12. We found, the O.P.2 has labeled charges on O.P.1 and the subsequent show cause or thereof proceeding and finality though awaiting may not reach within the time due to collusion of the parties, as deemed with. The O.P.1 is neither able to give documentary evidence on the facts, issues and contention raised nor has the denouncement is founded one.
13. It is surprised, the price list submitted by the O.P.2 says the Maikal-8000 Super strong bear –(650 ml) (NEW) costs Rs 94/-.Then it is not possible the print MRP costs Rs 68/- which is not given in its report. Even the procurement of Maikal-8000 Super strong Bear has not given in elaborate. Again, even we take into account the present cost for the year 2014-2015 as Rs 94/- then the investigating S.I. Excise directed to return the excess payment received and it is a fact the O.P.1 has remitted a sum of Rs 35/- through money order from Agalpur Post Office vide E.M.No.089288140515000313, received on dt.20.05.2014 by the complainant. Making the issue more significant that if any excess price not collected then how it is possible to return by money order. So it is clinching evidential price collected and return for the red handed notice by the complainant.
The cost of the beer, receive and return matrix goes like this.
The complainant paid for 3 nos beer bottle- Rs 95 x 3 = Rs 285/-
Actual printing MRP costs: Rs 68 x 3 = Rs 204/-
The IMFL “OFF” SHOP RETURNED Rs 35/- = Rs 285 – 35 = Rs 250/-
Final retaining Rs 250 – Rs 204 = Rs 46/- excess price retained even after return of Rs 35/- to the complainant vide money order.
14. The entire price break up speaks, the Excise Deptt. and O.P.1 ;has made mockery of the law in force and charges made on the irregularity (Form No.C-10) on the descripted offence is managed one and the people at Agalpur may not see the outcome or conclusive result may not see light of the day.
15. So far as our concern goes, cases are adjudicated and contentions made lavishly without any hesitate saying that the counsel has taken a decisive stand. Realistically, it is a vague exercise to assert the stand by the O.Ps. In similar way the liquor shops neither issue receipts nor receipts offered although being a sensitive product on sale. The money receipt even if non- issuance will arose the cause of action. As the shop used to take excess price in each product in it sales. And the O.P.1 has not produced an unflappable evidence to its rebuttal rather it is evidential it hurriedly return excess price and price has sent by the OFF Shop, which denies that the beer has not been sold making it highly ridiculous. The O.P.1 also made fabrication that the licensee is Aswini Kumar Mund but the Vakalatnama’s executants is Jitendra Kumar Sahu being to the extent of relation with the IMFL “OFF” shop in question is not addressed. So it is incorrigibly proved and evidential, the licensee avoiding the legal process because of the faults, in its day to day transaction which is conspicuously brings to notice and the materials available on the record exposed, the petitioner is a bonafide consumer, the case does not suffer barred of limitation and retaining excess money beyond the printed MRP Price is also tends to arose cause of action. Similarly it is contradictory the O.P.1 denies the sale but returns the in appropriate excess money received at his end which is enough evidential of fault, negligence and short coming committed in each and every step of the transaction made.
16. By our opinion that we inclined to say, the O.P.1 is at fault taking excessive e price more than the labeled price i.e Rs 68/- as printed .Thus innumerable unidentified consumers are duped. In this context, Govt. of Odisha, Excise Department guideline Clause-23- Maximum Retail Price- reads- Maximum Retail Price (MRP) will be displayed on each bottle of IMFL Beer and country spirit and sold accordingly. The vendors will issue cash Memo on demand to the consumers failing which the vendors shall be penalized with fine up to Rs 10,000/-.
17. Again Orissa Excise Act 2005- Section 30 reads- Ex-factory price and Maximum Retail Price shall be declared by the Manufacturer, or the licensee along with the application for registration of brand and label to the excise commissioner. The maximum retail price shall be determined based on declared ex-factory price, applicable duties fees, margins to whole sailors’ and retailers and any other declared basis.
18. The legal Metrology packaged commodities Rules-2011 Rule 18(2). No retail dealer or other person including manufacturer, packer, importer and wholesale dealer shall make any sale of any commodity in packed form at a price exceeding the retail sale price thereof.
19. Both the Act and regulation conjoint reading explicitly speak Maximum Retail Price is like a laxmanrekha, any deviation on either way will imply fault breach of guideline that will charged with fine upto Rs 10,000/- and breach of Act will charged to the scale of deficiency committed.
20. In view of the aforementioned findings, we come to conclusion the O.P.1 has committed unfair trade practice and also deficient in non rendering services as per law, squarely at fault thus liable to pay the petitioner justifiably.
Hence ordered;
(i) The O.P.1 is directed to pay the complaint petitioner a sum of Rs 2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand)only, as compensation for harassment and mental agony sustained inclusive of legal expenses incurred within 30 days of this order, failing which @ 9% interest per annum will accrue on the entire sum from the date of purchase till realization of payment.
(ii) We hereby revoke & cancel the”OFF Shop” license as retained with the licensee Aswini Kumar Mund for playing truant with the law and forum by making mockery of the C.P.Act in non honouring the call of the forum directions, orders and NBW willfully and deliberately. So hereby charged with penalty a sum of Rs 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) that to be deposited at State Consumer Welfare Fund within thirty days of this order, failing which @ 12% interest P.A. will accrue on same till realization.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE TH DAY OF JUNE 2016.
(S.RATH) (G.K.RATH) (P.SAMANTARA)
MEMBER MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
