By Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The Complainant is a coolie worker. On 09.01.2018, he purchased 750 M.L foreign liquor “BACARDI GUAVA” from the retail outlet of first Opposite Party. The first Opposite Party obtained Rs.1,370/- from the Complainant for the said liquor. But the sticker on the bottle contained that it’s M.R.P is Rs.1,310/-. When the Complainant attempted to see the first Opposite Party, staffs obstructed him and not allowed to see the first Opposite Party. Even though, the Complainant tried to give complaint to first Opposite Party on various occasions, the staffs never allowed him to give complaint. The Opposite Parties are not entitled to obtain more amount than the MRP affixed on the bottle. Since, the first Opposite Party obtained more amount than the M.R.P from the Complainant, it is unfair trade practice. Since, the staffs obstructed the Complainant from giving the complaint, there is dereliction of their duty. Thus, they mentally harassed the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant sent a lawyer notice to Opposite Parties to which first Opposite Party sent a false reply. Hence, this complaint to get back the excess amount and to get Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost with interest at 12% per annum.
3. The second Opposite Party is ex-parte. The first Opposite Party filed counter and additional counter which run as follows:-
The Kerala state Beverage Corporation Limited is a government undertaking and since the Complainant has not impleaded the Government of Kerala, this complaint is not maintainable. The first Opposite Party is not familiar with the Complainant. He denied that the Complainant was obstructed by staffs when he attempted to see him to give complaint. The first Opposite Party or their staffs have no power to increase the price. They sold the liquor for Rs.1,370/- as per the direction of the Managing Director of the Corporation. The first Opposite Party had given bill for Rs.1,370/- when they sold the liquor. The Complainant has not given any complaint before first Opposite Party. They denied that there is unfair trade practice and there was mental harassment to the Complainant. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice and mental harassment from the Opposite Parties? If so, whether the Complainant is entitled to get anything from the Opposite Parties as prayed for?
2. Reliefs and Cost.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of PW1, OPW1, Ext.A1 to A5, Ext.B1, B2 and MO1. Heard both sides.
6. Point No.1 :- Evidently, the Complainant had purchased MO1 liquor for Rs.1,370/- from the outlet of Opposite Parties on 09.01.2018. Ext.A1 is the Bill. It is also evident that the MRP printed on MO1 is Rs.1,310/-. The Complainant’s grievance is that the first Opposite Party obtained excess amount of Rs.60/- from him and when he tried to give complaint, staffs of first Opposite Party harassed him mentally. So, he alleged unfair trade practice and mental harassment from the Opposite Parties. But, the first Opposite Party contented that he has no power to get excess amount from the consumer and he had obtained the alleged excess amount only as per the direction given by the Managing Director, second Opposite Party. Ext.B1 is the letter issued by the Managing Director of Kerala State Beverages. As per Ext.B1, the Warehouses and Shops were directed to obtain the price, according to the price list attached to Ext.B1 for the liquor mentioned there from 02.11.2017. The date of Ext.B1 is 20.10.2017. Evidently the manufacturing date of MO1 is 07.09.2017. So, it can be seen that MO1 was manufactured before Ext.B1 direction. Ext.B1 contains the reason for the increase of price. It is stated in Ext.B1 that consequent to the new rate contract for the purchase of liquor for 2017-18, there is a revision in the warehouse selling price/MRP of certain brands/packs. The names of brands and new prices are mentioned in the list attached with Ext.B1. So, it can be seen that the Managing Director issued Ext. B1, letter to the warehouse managers/shop-in-charges to get increased price for some brands in consequence to the new rate contract for the purchase of liquor for 2017-2018. It means that new rate contact for purchase of liquor effected from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. As we already stated, the manufacture date of MO1 is 07.09.2017. So, though, the new rate contract for the purchase of liquor affected from 01.04.2017, the Managing Director has directed to get the increased price for some brands only from 02.11.2017. Here, absolutely, there is no whisper why such direction was only from 02.11.2017 even if, the rate contract for purchase of liquor from 01.04.2017 is new. Moreover, as we already stated, the manufacture of MO1 was on 07.09.2017 and Ext.B1 is only on 10.10.2017. The MRP of MO1 was already affixed on it as Rs.1,310/- and without replacing that sticker, the first Opposite Party obtained Rs.1,370/- from the Complainant which is admittedly more than the MRP affixed on MO1. The purpose of affixing MRP on the goods is to restrict unfair trade practise by avoiding in getting unreasonable amount by the sellers from the public. So, sellers are not entitled to receive a price more than the MRP affixed on the goods. They are also not entitled to change the MRP affixed on the goods. Thus, the Opposite Parties have no right to get the amount which is more than the MRP affixed on MO1. If, they obtained more than the MRP, no doubt it is unfair trade practice. Moreover, the customers have a right to be informed about the price of goods as per the Consumer Protection Act. Here, there is no evidence to show that the increased price of MO1 was exhibited publically in order to view by the customers. In Ext.B1, it is stated that the price list should be available at the warehouses and shops well in advance and entered in the billing machines. It does not contain that the price list should be exhibited at the warehouses and shops in order to view by the customers. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the meaning of “price list should be available” contained in Ext. B1 is “it should be exhibited”. But here, the Opposite Parties have no case that they exhibited the increased price list in front of the shops and the Complainant purchased MO1 after knowing the increased rate. Therefore, it is evident that the Opposite Parties have obtained more amount than the rate fixed on MO1. So, there is unfair trade practise. The Complainant alleged that even though, he attempted to give complaint to first Opposite Party, the staffs did not allow him to see the first Opposite Party and thus they harassed him mentally. So, according to him, he also entitled to get compensation. PW1 deposed about this grievance. But, nothing is here to discredit this evidence. So, we have to hold that Complainant is entitled to get compensation. So the Point No.1 is answered in favour of Complainant.
7. Point No.2:- The Complainant wants to get the excess amount obtained by the Opposite Party from him ie Rs.60/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental strain. No doubt, he is entitled to get the excess amount obtained by the Opposite Parties. But, the compensation sought for is exorbitant. Since, the Opposite Parties committed unfair trade practice and caused mental strain, they are liable to compensate. As per our opinion, Rs.5,000/- is reasonable. There is no order as to cost and interest. Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.5,060/- (Rupees Five Thousand and Sixty only) to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.
Return MO1 to PW1 if, he claimed within one month after the appeal period. If not, destroy it.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 8th day of April 2022.
Date of Filing:-09.02.2018.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Shaji. M. G. Agriculture.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Anil Kumar. K. B. UDC in Kerala State Beverages
Corporation, Ambalavayal.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Bill. Dt:09.01.2018.
A2. Lawyer Notice. Dt:16.01.2017.
A3. Postal Receipt. Dt:17.01.2018.
A4. Acknowledgment Card.
A5. Reply Notice. Dt:22.01.2018.
MO1. Bacardi Guava 750 ML.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Letter. Dt:20.10.2017.
B2. Copy of Authorization Letter. Dt:16.04.2021.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRC, WAYANAD.
