Date of Filing      : 08.07.2022

                                                                                                                  Date of Disposal: 03.07.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

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

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.,ICWA(Inter)., B.L.,                                    ....MEMBER-II

CC. No.156/2022

THIS MONDAY, THE 03^rd DAY OF JULY 2023

Mr.M.Sathish, S/o.L.Manivannan,

No.F3, 1^st Floor,

St.Joseph School Road,

Poonamallee, Chennai 600 056.                                                             ……Complainant.

                                                                               //Vs//

The  Manager,

The Chennai Silks,

No.65A, C.V.Naidu Road,

Opposite Meera Theatre,

Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu 602 001.                                                 ..........Opposite party.

Counsel for the complainant                             :   Mr.R.Hariramkrishnan, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                         :   Mr.Ilayaraja, Advocate.

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 23.06.2023 in the presence of Mr.R.Hariramkrishnan, counsel for the complainant and Mr.Ilayaraja, counsel for the oppostie party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service in selling the product above the MRP rate along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for cheating the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the act of opposite party in selling the BATA slipper purchased by complainant above the MRP rate the present complaint was filed.

It was the case of the complainant that he purchased dresses and slippers from the opposite party’s showroom for a total sum of Rs.2,545/-. In one of the slippers (BATA Brand), even though the original printed M.R.P. on the front side of the BATA slipper was found a Rs.379/-, the opposite party tampered the same by striking off the actual printed M.R.P. using a blue sketch pen and reprinted its own new price tag showing MRP as Rs.380/- one rupee higher than the actual printed M.R.P. of BATA which was an act of violation of moral & ethical business practices. After noticing the malpractice the complainant immediately informed its Sales Supervisor about the same but the sales supervisor did not respond and continued to abuse the complainant. The maximum retail price should never be higher than the actual printed MRP.  The opposite party had also defamed the brand BATA by tampering with the original printed price of BATA by striking off the actual printed M.R.P. using a blue sketch pen. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for cheating the complainant.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-

Disputing the complaint allegations the opposite party filed written version contending interalia that they are running textile show rooms under the name and style “The Chennai Silks” and had established vide network throughout the Southern States and earned good reputation from general public. It was their case that the complainant on 10.04.2022 purchased dresses and slippers for a total sum of Rs.2,545/- and for one of the pair slippers of BATA Brand, even though the original price fixed by the dealer was Rs.399/- after applying 5% discount as it comes to Rs.379.05/- was rounded off to Rs.380/- and the same was kept for debit and to be returned to the dealer.  However, the same was purchased by the customer by mistake and the reason for fixing the price tag of Rs.380/- was also well explained to the customer and an apology was also sought for.  There was no illegal act nor tampering of records as alleged by the complainant. Further, the Sales Supervisor treated the complainant with all respected dignity and had not abused the complainant as contended by him.  Thus denying all other complaint allegations stating that the complaint was filed only to harass the opposite party, sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.5 were marked on their side.  On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 submitted and marked on their side.

 Point for consideration:-

1)      Whether the complaint allegations that the opposite party has sold the product “BATA slippers” above the MRP fixed by the manufacturer and thereby committed deficiency in service has been proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?

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

Point No.1:-

On the side of complainant the following documents were filed for proving the complaint allegations;

a)     Cash Bill dated 10.04.2022 was marked as Ex.A1;

b)      Slippers photo was marked as Ex.A2;

c)       Chennai Silks price tag was marked as Ex.A3;

d)      Legal notice sent by the complainant dated 14.05.2022 was marked as Ex.A4;

e)     Reply notice by the opposite party dated 24.05.2022 was marked as Ex.A5;

 On the side of opposite party the following documents were filed for their contentions;

f)      The photo of slipper with price tag of Rs.399/- was marked as Ex.B1;

g)     Reply notice of the opposite party dated 24.05.2022 was marked as Ex.B2;

        The crux of the oral arguments adduced by the Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant is that the opposite party had sold a BATA Slipper with MRP 379/- for Rs.380/- by fraudulently conceiling the price tag fixed and attached by BATA.  Further when he questioned he was ill-treated by the staff who was present in the concerned section. Thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party stated that the actual price of the BATA Slipper was Rs.399/- and after applying 5% discount it came to Rs.379.05/-. However the same was sold at a rounded off value of Rs.380/-.  Also the concerned slipper was kept for debit and to be returned to the dealer but the same was mistakenly purchased by the consumer.  Thus he sought for the complaint to be dismissed stating that no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice has been committed by them.

On perusal of the entire pleadings and materials this Commission is of the view that the complaint has to be allowed in part for the following reasons;

a)      The defence taken by the opposite party that the actual price of the slipper was Rs.399/- however it was sold Rs.380/- after applying discount was not proved by any documentary evidence. The opposite party could have produced any purchase ledger to show the actual price of slippers is Rs.399/-.

b)      The opposite party themselves admits that the concerned slipper was kept in debit to be returned to the dealer but the same was purchased by the customer mistakenly.  If the said version is true, no proper explanation was given by the opposite party as to why the said product is kept in the row of products intended for sale.

c)     It could be apparently seen with naked eyes that in the slippers below the trade mark name BATA it has been written M.R.P. Rs.379.00/- and the same was struck off with blue ink.

d)      Further in the reply notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant’s legal notice they themselves had admitted that their staff had fixed the price tag of Rs.380/- in the subject slippers by over sight and not intentionally. 

e)      When it is admitted by the opposite party that they have admitted their fault and expressed their apology along with explanation to the customer what necessitated the opposite party to charge Rs.380/- from the complainant for the said slippers vide bill No.4381 dated 10.04.2022.

f)       It is the defence of the opposite party that the price Rs.380/- was fixed after applying 5% discount on the product price of Rs.399/- and hence they acted favourably for the consumer.  If it is true, then they should have applied 5% discount on the MRP i.e. on 379/- which will be arrived at lesser than MRP.

g)      When the maximum Retail Price is the maximum price that can be charged by a retailer to the end consumer for any product or service which is inclusive of all taxes and includes the cost of production, transportation, and any other costs incurred by the manufacturer or seller, the defence put up by the opposite party that they are free to fix the sale price could not be accepted as BATA has fixed the MRP for the slipper concerned as only Rs.379/-, above which it should not be sold anywhere. If any shop charges more than MRP it is considered illegal and a violation of the Law.

h)      One of the important consumer right is that the MRP printed on the packaging of the product is to ensure transparency and to help the consumers to make informed purchasing decisions, the act of opposite party clearly violates the said consumer right which could not be condoned.

Thus when government of India regulates MRP to prevent retailers from overcharging customers and as per the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 the MRP prinited on a product is the maximum price that a consumer has to pay to purchase the product, the act of opposite party in charging Rs.1/- above the MRP though a meagre amount clearly amounts to imperfection or inadequvacy in servie causing loss to consumer and lead to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite party.

Point No.2:-

Though the amount involved is a meagre amount, the act of opposite party could not be condoned as it involves mammoth public interest and we direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the hardship and mental agony caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing him,

a)      To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for the mental agony 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 President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 03^rd day of July 2023.

    Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                   PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of document filed by the opposite party:-

 Sd/-                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                         PRESIDENT