Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/426/2018

C P Vijay Prabhakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

TASMAC - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

29 Nov 2022

ORDER

                                                     Date of Complaint Filed : 20.11.2018

                                                     Date of Reservation      : 22.11.2022

                                                     Date of Order               : 29.11.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:  TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                         : PRESIDENT

                     THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,         :  MEMBER  I 

                   THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 426/2018

TUESDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

C.P. Vijay Prabhakar,

W 96 2^nd Street,

Anna Nagar,

Chennai  600 040.                                                        ...  Complainant

-Vs-

Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited,

CMDA Tower II, IV floor,

Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road,

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.                                        ... Opposite party

******

Counsel for the Complainant            : Party in Person

Counsel for the Opposite Party         : Exparte

 

        On perusal of records, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the Member-I, Thiru. T.R.Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.     The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice in duty and deficiency in service and mental agony along with cost of this complaint.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

On 11.10.2018 he had visited the Opposite Party’s Imported liquor shop No.440 at Shanthi Colony, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040 and picked up a Kingfisher Blue Beer measuring 375 ml for consumption, the MRP mentioned in the said Beer was Rs.75/- whereas he was charged Rs.80/- by the Shop keeper, which was more than the Market Retail Price. Further averred that when he insisted for Bill, the Shop keeper had refused to give Bill rather along with other works had abused and threatened him from exercising his rights as a Consumer, which made him to sustain grave mental agony and their acts and services amounts to Unfair Trade Practice and deficiency of service, for which the Opposite Party was vicariously liable. Though he had sent Notice to the Opposite Party, there was no response, in spite of receipt of the same. Hence the Complaint.

3.   The Complainant has filed his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments and on the side of the Complainant Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked. The Opposite Party had entered appearance through its Counsel but for non-filing of Written Version, in spite of several opportunities, they were set exparte.

Points for Consideration:-

1.     Whether the Complaint filed by the Complainant is maintainable?       

2.     Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party?

3.     Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed in the Complaint and/or for any other relief/s? 

Point Nos.1 and 2:-

On careful reading of the Complaint and the Exhibits marked in support of the Complaint, the Complainant though had contended that he had visited the Opposite Party’s Imported Liquor Shop bearing No.440 at Shanthi Colony, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040 and purchased 375ml Kingfisher Blue Beer, the MRP mentioned was Rs.75/- but he was charged Rs.80/- which was more than the MRP, in spite of his demand, the said Shop keeper had failed to provide/produce him a Bill for his purchase and he was abused and threatened by the Shop keeper and other workers, when that is so, the Complainant should have impleaded the said Shop Keeper, who was in charge of the said Shop of the Opposite Party, to establish and prove the said act of the Shop Keeper amounts to Unfair Trade Practice and Deficiency of Service, when no action has been taken by the Opposite Party in spite of receipt of Ex.A-1, as found in Ex.A-2. Hence, we hold that the Complainant having failed to implead the Shop Keeper who was in charge at the time of occurrence of the said incident and who would be primarily liable, is a necessary party to this Complaint, when vicarious liability on the part of the Opposite Party was claimed by the Complainant. Hence the Complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party.

On discussion made above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Complainant though had produced a CD (Compact Disk) which was marked as Ex.A-3, CD being an Electronic record, is not supported by any authenticated certificate as required under Section 65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act, hence Ex.A-3 is not an admissible evidence. Apart from Ex.A-3 the Complainant had not produced any material evidence to show the purchase of the subject product was made on 11.10.2018 from the alleged shop and also failed to produce the container/bottle of the subject product to show that the MRP of subject product was Rs.75/-, before this Commission. Further, having failed to implead the Shop Keeper who was in charge at the time of occurrence of the said incident, to prove his case on the incident that has taken place and therefore Vicarious liability on the part of the Opposite Party is not proved. Hence the contentions of the Complainant are not legally sustainable, as the same were not proved by any material evidence by the Complainant. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party had not committed unfair trade practice and/or deficiency of service. Accordingly Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered.

Point No.3:-

As discussed and decided Point Nos.1 and 2 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and hence not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point No.3 is answered.

In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 29^th of  November 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	12.10.2018	Notice by Petitioner/Applicant
Ex.A2	17.10.2018	Acknowledgement received
Ex.A3	11.10.2018	Video Evidence

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

NIL

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                      MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT