IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE Hon’ble Thiru. Dr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN PRESIDENT
Thiru.K.BASKARAN JUDICIAL MEMBER
Tmt.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI MEMBER
COMMON ORDER FA.Nos.51/2017 to 55/2017
(As against the order in CCSr.No.929/2016 to 933/2016 dated 19.1.2017 on the file of DCDRF,Chennai(South)
THURSDAY, THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER 2019
FA.No.51/2017
S. Jayaraman,
S/o Shanmuga Nadar,
6/125, 3rd street, P.M.Samy Colony,
R.S.Puram, Coimbatore – 641 002 .. Appellant/complainant
Vs
1. The Proprietor/Manager,
Sri Akilandeswari Amman Fruits,
51, Ramakrishna Madam Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004
(Kovai Pazhamudhir Nilayam)
2.The Marketing Manager,
Britannia Industries Ltd,
5/1A, Hunger Ford street,
Kolkata – 700 017
(A Wadia Enterprise) ..Respondents/ opposite parties
FA.No.52/2017
S. Jayaraman,
S/o Shanmuga Nadar,
6/125, 3rd street, P.M.Samy Colony,
R.S.Puram, Coimbatore – 641 002 .. Appellant/complainant
Vs
1. The Proprietor/Manager,
Sri Akilandeswari Amman Fruits,
51, Ramakrishna Madam Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004
(Kovai Pazhamudhir Nilayam)
2.The Marketing Manager,
Britannia Industries Ltd,
5/1A, Hunger Ford street,
Kolkata – 700 017
(A Wadia Enterprise) ..Respondents/ opposite parties
FA.No.53/2017
S. Jayaraman,
S/o Shanmuga Nadar,
6/125, 3rd street, P.M.Samy Colony,
R.S.Puram, Coimbatore – 641 002 .. Appellant/complainant
Vs
1. The Proprietor/Manager,
Sri Akilandeswari Amman Fruits,
51, Ramakrishna Madam Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004
(Kovai Pazhamudhir Nilayam)
2.The Marketing Manager,
Britannia Industries Ltd,
5/1A, Hunger Ford street,
Kolkata – 700 017
(A Wadia Enterprise) ..Respondents/ opposite parties
FA.No.54/2017
S. Jayaraman,
S/o Shanmuga Nadar,
6/125, 3rd street, P.M.Samy Colony,
R.S.Puram, Coimbatore – 641 002 .. Appellant/complainant
Vs
1. The Proprietor/Manager,
Sri Akilandeswari Amman Fruits,
51, Ramakrishna Madam Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004
(Kovai Pazhamudhir Nilayam)
2.The Marketing Manager,
Britannia Industries Ltd,
5/1A, Hunger Ford street,
Kolkata – 700 017
(A Wadia Enterprise) ..Respondents/ opposite parties
FA.No.55/2017
S. Jayaraman,
S/o Shanmuga Nadar,
6/125, 3rd street, P.M.Samy Colony,
R.S.Puram, Coimbatore – 641 002 .. Appellant/complainant
Vs
1. The Proprietor/Manager,
Sri Akilandeswari Amman Fruits,
51, Ramakrishna Madam Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004
(Kovai Pazhamudhir Nilayam)
2.The Marketing Manager,
Britannia Industries Ltd,
5/1A, Hunger Ford street,
Kolkata – 700 017
(A Wadia Enterprise) ..Respondents/ opposite parties
For Appellant/complainant : Mr.S.Jayaraman, party in person
Counsel for 1st Respondent/1st op : M/s Muthumani Doraisamy
Counsel for 2nd Respondent/2nd op : M/s R.Saravanakumar
These appeals are coming up before us for hearing finally on 6.12.2019, upon perusing the records of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai(South) and heard both side arguments, this commission made the following common order.
By Hon’ble Dr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN PRESIDENT
COMMON ORDER IN FA.NOs.51/2017 TO 55/2017
1. The parties and the subject matter involved in all the appeals are one and the same, hence they were heard together, and a common order is passed.
2. The appellant appearing as party in person, filed five complaints before the District Forum, Chennai (South) as complainants, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as against the opposite parties viz. The Manager, M/s. Agilandeswari Amman Fruit and The Marketing Manager, Britannia Industries. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are viz Retailer and Manufacturer respectively.
3. The crux of all the cases of the complainant in person before the District Forum is as follows:
The complainant purchased a Brittania Pure Magic Biscuit by paying a sum of Rs.20/- from the 1st opposite party, manufactured by the 2nd opposite party herein. The allegation of the complainant is that in the wrapper cover of the Brittania Pure Magic biscuit pack the price was printed as Rs.25/- and by striking out the same, mentioned as “Now Rs.20/-“. Whereas the Maximum Retail Price as mentioned in the price column the rate of the biscuit has been given as Rs.20/-. The complainant had submitted that if the opposite parties had the bonafide intention of offering their product at a concessional rate, then they either ought to have collected Rs.15/- by providing Rs.5/- as concession, or the Maximum Retail Price of the product/ biscuit ought to have been shown as Rs.25/-. Instead they had printed the MRP as Rs.20/- and sold the biscuit for the same price of Rs.20/-, and just mentioning Rs.25/- in the docket in blocked column and strucking the same is only with an intention to lure the public to think that they have given some concession, is nothing but cheating and thus committed unfair trade practice. Thus the complainant filed the complaint praying for a direction to pay compensation and cost.
4. The learned District Forum, after scrutinizing the complaint, had returned the complaint on the question of maintainability. On resubmission, after hearing the complainant in person had passed a detailed order, rejecting the complaint before taking on file, by holding that there is no prima-facie for the allegations raised by the complainant. Thus the complainant in person is before us now praying for setting aside the order impugned passed by the District Forum.
5. On issuance of notice, the 1st and 2nd Respondents have appeared before this commission and filed their written arguments, and had submitted their case in detail.
6. The 1st Respondent /M/s. Agilandeswari amman Fruits would submit that the appellant/ complainant had purchased same biscuit packets from the same shop on various dates and filed various complaints on each purchase, claiming compensation and expenses, which is nothing but unlawful enrichment. The appellant had filed 80 similar complaints before various District Consumer Fora. The complainant had not disputed the quality of the biscuits, similarly it is not the case of the appellant/ complainant that the biscuits were sold at more than the MRP rate. The manufacturer during certain period offers discount by slashing the regular selling price of certain biscuits manufactured by them for a limited period. It is unfair on the part of the appellant/ complainant to claim further discount than the discounted price of Rs.20/-. The complainant had issued notice in all the cases only to the Manufacturer. Since the opposite parties sold the biscuits only at the MRP rate, the allegation of unfair trade practice is unsustainable. Cases filed by the appellant previously with similar allegations before this commission were dismissed, which was subsequently confirmed by the Hon’ble National Commission. The complainant is in the habit of misusing the Consumer Protection Act.
7. The 2nd Respondent/2nd opposite party/ Manufacturer would submit that from the wrapper of the biscuit packet itself any ordinary prudent man will understand that the price of the biscuit is Rs.20/-. Therefore, the allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties ought to have collected Rs.15/- per packet, is utterly baseless and untenable in law. There is no compulsion for the appellant/ complainant to buy the biscuit manufactured by this opposite party. However, the appellant for the reasons best known to him purchased the biscuits again and again in different parts of the state. Therefore the appeal deserves no merit.
8. Point for consideration is :
1. Whether there was any prima-facie case made out in the complaints filed by the appellant/ complainant?
9. POINT:
The case of the complainant in person is that he purchased biscuits, from the 1st opposite party, manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that in the wrapper cover of the Brittania Pure Magic biscuit pack the price printed as Rs.25/- and by strucking the same, mentioned as “Now Rs.20/-“. Whereas in the Maximum Retail Price column the rate of the biscuit has been given as Rs.20/-. The complainant would further submit that when the intention of the opposite parties was to give concession to the customers, then in the MRP column the price should have been mentioned by deducting the offer price.
10. The Respondents 1 and 2, by filing their written arguments would submit that the complainant had not disputed the quality of the biscuits, similarly it is not the case of the appellant/ complainant that the biscuits were sold at more than the MRP rate. The opposite parties would submit that the manufacturer, during certain period, offers discount by slashing the regular selling price of certain biscuits manufactured by them, for a limited period. Therefore, the allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties ought to have collected Rs.15/- per packet, is utterly baseless and untenable.
11. As per the order impugned, the District Forum has held that a perusal of the wrapper of the biscuit would show that the price mentioned as Rs.25/- would indicate the price which was sold before, and that had been now reduced to Rs.20/- by giving concession @ Rs.5/-. The MRP rate was also mentioned as Rs.20/- only. Therefore, the allegation of the complainant is purely imaginary and is unacceptable. Accordingly it has rejected all the complaints before taking them on file.
12. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side, perused the materials available on record, and passed the following order.
13. A perusal of the order impugned, and the written arguments filed by the Respondents/ 1 & 2 opposite parties would show that the opposite parties with a view to give some offer to the customers, by way of discounted price, they had sold particular batch of biscuits at a concessional rate of Rs.20/- since it is the submission of the opposite parties that they were selling the same biscuits for a sum of Rs.25/- before. Therefore, in order to make the customers/ public to understand the concession offered by the manufacturers, both rates were mentioned and by striking of Rs.25/- it was printed as “Now Rs.20/-. Therefore the allegation of the complainant that the price ought to have been Rs.15/- instead of Rs.20/- seems to be imaginary and greedy. It is also not the case of the complainant that the biscuits have been sold at more than the MRP rate. Likewise, he had also not commented anything about the quality of the biscuits.
14. It is also to be noted that the act of the complainant in buying the same brand of biscuits from the various shops all over Tamil Nadu, and filing complaints against the various retailers, and the same Manufacturer i.e, the 2nd opposite party herein seems to be that there is some mal-intention behind to hit the 2nd opposite party with an ulterior motive. Moreover, if the motive of the complainant is to make the consumers aware about the unfair trade practice allegedly practiced by the opposite parties, then in his complaint he ought to have prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to stop such practices. Instead, the complainant claimed only for granting of compensation and cost. Therefore, it is crystal clear that there is no service motive behind all these allegations, which are all imaginary, and it is nothing but to extract unlawful enrichment from the opposite parties, by damaging their reputation, which cannot be encouraged. In the above said circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is no error in the order of the District Forum, in rejecting the unnumbered complaints, by holding that there is no prima-facie in the complaints filed by the complainant, which deserves acceptance. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
In the result, all the appeals in FA.Nos.51/2017 to 55/2017 are dismissed. No order as to cost.
Sd/-xxxx Sd/-xxxx Sd/-xxxx
S.M. LATHAMAHESWARI K. BASKARAN S. TAMILVANAN
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT
