Date of Filing 01.02.2023

                                                                                                       Date of Disposal: 30.11.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                    …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL,                                                                           ……MEMBER-I

CC.No.11/2023

THIS THURSDAY, THE 30^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023

Mr.J.Raja,

S/o.Jeyaraman,

No.3/411, 19^th Street,

Anjaneyapuram,

Kakkalur, Thiruvallur,

Tamil Nadu 602 003.                                                                                ......Complainant.

                                                                        //Vs//

1.The Chairman,

    TASMAC Limited,

    Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Managing Director,

    TASMAC Limited,

    4^th Floor, CMDA Tower-II,

    Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

3.The General Manager,

    (Retail & Vending),

    TASMAC Limited,

    4^th Floor, CMDA Tower –II,

    Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

4.The District Manager,

    IMFS Depot, TASMAC Limited,

   Plot No.G.29 & 30, SIDCO Road,

   Industrial Estate, Kakkalur,

   Tamil Nadu 602 003.                                                                      ……Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                      : M/s.Vedha Priyadharshini, Advocate.

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party             : Exparte.

Counsel for the opposite parties 2 to 4    : Mr.Sekar, Advocate.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 18.11.2023 in the presence of M/s.Vedha Priyadharshini, counsel for the complainant and Mr.Sekar, counsel for the opposite parties 2 to 4 and 1^st opposite party was set expate for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, MEMBER-I

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties with regard excess amount collected from the complainant instead of MRP price along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. That the complainant purchased a liquor in one of the shops run by the opposite parties in shop No.8763, Kakkalur Bye Pass Road, Kakkalur – 602 003.  The complainant purchased OLD MONK Premium Rum 750ml for a sum of Rs.760/- vide Debit card invoice No.028947 on 23.04.2022.  After verifying the bottle, the complainant came to know that the maximum retail price for the above said liquor is Rs.720/-.  The complainant requested the employees to refund the excess amount of Rs.40/- collected from him.  The employees of opposite parties threatened him with dire consequences.  The complainant issued legal notice dated 03.06.2022 to all the opposite parties.  All the opposite parties received the notice but the 4^th opposite party alone gave an evasive reply vide reply notice dated 02.07.2022.  The 4^th opposite party conducted the enquiry with staffs and denied the allegations of the complainant. The 4^th opposite party conducted the enquiry in a biased manner without the knowledge of the complainant.  Thus the opposite parties had committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties 2 to 4:-

3. That the opposite parties are running liquor shop No.8763 (TASMAC) and the complainant never substantiated that he had purchased 750ml bottle of OLD MONK PREMIUM RUM for Rs.760/-.  It is denied that the complainant demanded for the return of excess amount said to have paid more than the retail price of Rs.720/- and the staffs of opposite parties refused to return and behaved in rude manner.  The 4^th opposite party suitably replied to the legal notice dated 03.06.2022.  Proper enquiry was conducted with staffs and their reply was given to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties and hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

4. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A4 were submitted. On the side of opposite parties 2 to 4 proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B1 was submitted. Though notice was served to the 1^st opposite party he did not appear to file any written version and he was called absent and set exparte on 05.05.2023 as per statute.

Points for consideration:-

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant against the opposite parties has been successfully proved by the complainant with admissible evidence?

2) If so, to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

5. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased 750ml of OLD MONK PREMIUM RUM for a sum of Rs.760/- from one of the shops of the opposite parties.  The staffs of the opposite parties collected Rs.760/- instead of MRP price of Rs.720/- from the complainant.  When the complainant requested the staffs of the opposite parties to refund the excess amount they behaved in rude manner.  Legal notice dated 03.06.2022 was issued to the opposite parties and 4^th opposite parties along replied stating that enquiry has been conducted with the staffs and denied the allegations of the complainant.  The 4^th opposite party conducted the enquiry in a biased manner without the knowledge of the complainant.  Hence the complaint.

6. To prove the case, the complainant deposed proof affidavit with 4 documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.  Ex.A1 is the Photocopy the payment receipt made through Debit Card, Ex.A2 is the photos, Ex.A3 is the legal notice and Ex.A4 is the reply notice.

7. Even after receipt of summons from this Commission, the 1^st opposite party had not appeared before this Commission and file written version to defend the case.  Hence the 1^st opposite party set exparte on 05.05.2023.

8. The opposite parties 2 to 4 interalia contended that the complainant had not purchased the said OLD MONK PREMIUM RUM from the alleged shop No.8763 of the opposite parties on 23.04.2022. The complainant had not substantiated his allegations with documentary evidence.  The allegations of the complainant are false and frivolous and a concocted story.  Proper enquiry was conducted with the staffs and their reply was given to the complainant.  No excess amount collected from the complainant as alleged by the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

9.  To deny the allegations of the complainant, the 4^th deposed proof affidavit with a document which was marked as Ex.B1.Ex.B1 is the cash receipt of the opposite parties on 23.04.2022.

10. We have perused the pleadings and documents filed by both the parties and heard the argument of respective counsels.  Ex.A1 is the counter foil of payment Rs.760/- made to the shop No.8763 through Debit Card.  Ex.A2 is the photo of the said liquor bottle wherein it has been mentioned maximum retail price as Rs.720/-.  On perusal of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 it is made clear that the staffs of opposite parties had collected Rs.40/- excess from the complainant.  The staffs of opposite parties collected Rs.760/- instead of Rs.720/-.

11. Upon receipt of Ex.A3 legal notice from the complainant the 4^th opposite party conducted enquiry with the staffs of the shop No.8763.  However, no notice has been issued to the complainant to attend the enquiry.  The 4^th opposite party should have conducted the enquiry after giving due opportunities to both the parties to put forth their contentions.  No such opportunity was given to the complainant.  Hence the opposite parties conducted the enquiry in a biased manner.  Ex.B1 is the cash receipt of the opposite parties on 23.04.2022. The opposite parties had not filed the entire receipts issued on 23.04.2022 to substantiate that they had not sold the said liquor to the complainant. Hence the contention of the opposite parties that they had not sold OLD MONK PREMIUM RUM on that day is not acceptable one.

12. It is evident from Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 that the opposite parties had collected Rs.40/- excess from the complainant.  Hence we have come to the conclusion that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  This point is answered accordingly.

Point No.2:-

13. The act of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Since we have come to the conclusion that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service, the complainant has to be compensated for his mental agony and hardship accordingly.  We inclined to award Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.  This point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties 1 to 4 directing them

a) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;

b) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

Dictated by the Member-I to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 30^th day of November 2023.

       -Sd-                                                                                                               -Sd-                                                                                                               

MEMBER-I                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of document filed by the opposite parties 2 to 4:-

     -Sd-                                                                                                                   -Sd-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                      PRESIDENT