IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE   24^th  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

Present: -    Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

      Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

                     CC.No.14/2019

Chandrashekharan Pillai,

Puthiya veedu,

Vadakkumthala mekku,

Vadakkumthala east 1

Karunagappally P.O. 690536                                       :         Complainant

V/s

1.  The Manager,

           Supplyco Super Market,

          Edappally cotta.

2. Asst.Manager,

          Supplyco Depot,                                                           :            Opposite parties

       Karunagappally.

     3. Junior Manager

        Supplyco Depot,

      Karunagappally.

ORDER

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

1.       This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.       The averments in the complaint are as follows:-

          Complainant on 26.12.2018 purchased ½ kg of horse gram (muthira) from Anugraha Home mart, Edappallykotta, Kollam and paid Rs.27/- as its price.  Thereafter the complainant approached the nearby Supplyco Super market, Edappallykotta, Kollam and purchased ½ kg of horse gram again.  The price of the horse gram in the said Super market is Rs.53.36 paise.  When the difference in the price has been questioned by the complainant the employees of the 1^st opposite party super market responded that the bill of the said product has been already typed and in this stage the complainant should buy the product and told if the complainant is having any grievance he can file a complaint later.  The complainant believes that all the supplyco super markets are functioning in co-operative sector and they will provide welfare by way of discount of price for the common people.  The said act of the 1^st opposite party clearly amounts to unfair trade practice and caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.  The complainant had purchased ½ kg of horse gram on a rate of Rs.27/-.  The same quantity was purchased from the opposite parties super market and the 1^st opposite party super market has taken excess Rs.26/- from the complainant is an instance of unfair trade practice.  Hence the complaint.

3.       The 1^st opposite party filed belated version resisting the averments in the complaint.  Additional  2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are impleaded in the complaint as per I.A. No.170/2019.  Notice issued from the commission several times for the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties they failed to appear before the commission nor filed version.  Hence they were set exparte. 

4.       The contention of 1^st opposite party is that the complainant has no case regarding the quality and quantity of the product purchased from the super market nor the Supplyco super market has received more than the retail price.  Similarly the Manager and Junior Manager of the Civil Supplies is not made as a party in the complaint. There is no averments in the complaint about the deficiency in service attributed by 1^st opposite party.  1^st opposite party further contends that as an employee in Civil Supplies Corporation she has working in the super market on the capacity of Manager on deputation.  The further contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the complainant has already produced some bills before the commission that bills does not contain any seal or any writings officially of the employees of the super market.  The 1^st opposite party used to exhibit and       high quality products at their outlet by exhibiting the retail price printed and the consumers used to exercise their choice to select required and quality products from the super market after verifying its price.   The complainant has purchased  ½ kg horse gram on 26.12.2018 from the 1^st opposite party super market for Rs.53.36/- as per the bill.  Whereas he purchased ½ kg horse gram from Anugraha super market at 11.06 a.m. on the same day.  Hence it is clear that the complainant was fully aware of the difference in  price of the product at the time of purchase itself.  But after knowing the quality and quantity of the horse gram offered for sale at the 1^st opposite party outlet the complainant purchased it.  However he has no case that he was misled by  any person persuaded him to purchase goods from the 1^st opposite party outlet. 

5.       It is further contended by the opposite party there is a managing committee who fixes the prices of goods to be sold through supplyco super markets and maveli stores.  The 1^st opposite party is only an employee in the supplyco super market.  That the complainant is not claiming that the goods he had purchased from the private shop is equal or having the same quality of goods sold by the 1^st opposite party.  According to 1^st opposite party there are different kinds of super markets which conduct business of provision and different qualities available in the open market.  The complainant has no allegation that goods being supplied by the opposite party shop are inferior in quality. There is every chance of difference in the price according to the quality of goods. After purchasing the article by seeing and convincing it price the complainant has no right to raise allegation that the price charges is high.   The complainant has filed this complaint at the instance of other shop owners who are disturbed by the intervention of Civil Supplies Corporation by offering goods in a reasonable price through its out let. The price of the article offered for sale at the 1^st opposite party is not decided by its manager but it is decided by the department to Management Committee and the 1^st opposite party manager is not a member of the said committee.  The horse gram purchased from the private store in having lesser quality and the very same product purchased from the 1^st opposite party is quality product and hence the complainant has to paid more price than the price paid at the 1^st instance.  As there is every chance  to have difference in the price of a product, on the basis of its price the allegation of the complainant is baseless.   There is no merit in the complaint and the same liable to be dismissed with costs.

6.       In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice  on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs as prayed?
3. Reliefs and Costs?

7.       The 1^st opposite party who the filed version has not co-operated with trial when the case was specifically posted for recording evidence. Hence the 1^st opposite party also has been declared as exparte and exparte evidence was recorded.  The complainant filed proof affidavit and got marked Ext.P1 to P3 documents.  2 packets of horse gram alleged to have been purchased by the complainant one from the 1^st opposite party and another from the local market have been produced and got marked as MO1 & MO2.  Heard the complainant who himself has conducted the case.

Point 1& 2

8.       For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these two points are considered together.  According to the complainant initially he purchased ½ kg of horse gram at about 11.06. a.m. on 26.12.2018 from Anugraha Home Mart, Karunagappally, by paying Rs.27/-.   As he was in need of more horse gram he went to the 1^st opposite party Supplyco Super Market Edappallykotta and purchased ½ kg of horse gram for which the 1^st opposite party has realized Rs.53.36/- .  According to the complainant as the 1^st opposite party has realized more price the horse gram he has sustained a loss of Rs.26,000/- and also sustained mental agony apart from financial loss.  The only allegation against the 1^st opposite party is that he has charged more price than the price levied by Anugraha Super Market for ½ kg of horse gram.  However the complainant has no case in the complaint as well as in the proof affidavit that  the horse gram purchased from the open market(Anugraha Home Mart) and Supplyco outlet are having the same quality.  It is well settled that the price of the provision article or any other product depends upon the quality and person or institution which manufacture pack and offer for sale .  If a product is an indigenous product manufactured or cultivated by local people packed and offered for sale by them it can be sold for a lessor price since they need not pay any GST, electricity charge, water charge nor employee a large number of workers.  At the same time if the same product is manufactured by a company or a group of persons by employing large number of workers using equipments and implements and it is collected, packed and offered for sale under a brand name of a reputed or premium company the said company will be compelled to charge more price than the price for which the very same article which are offered for sale in open market.

9.       The ½ kg of horse gram purchased from the local market Anugraha Home Mart   is marked as MO1.  it is seen from MO 1 packet that it has been produced and packed by an indigenous company at Karunagapally, Kollam.  MO 2  horse gram packet claimed have to  have been purchased from the 1^st opposite party Supplyco outlet is the product manufactured and packed by Kayes Industry, Kilikolloor P.O., Kollam.  The date of packing, MRP net weight etc. are stated on the outer side of the packet.  AIAO bar-code is also shown.  The following additional informations are also seen stated in MO 2  that “ accredited USA”.  It is also stated “untouched by hand”.  On the front side of MO 2 packet below the name of the company product name are stated in different languages.  It is stated that “ with taste guard processing”.  All these information are not find a place on MO 1 packet purchased from the Anugraha Home Mart which would clearly indicate that the MO 2 horse gram packet purchased by paying higher price obtained from the Supplyco Super Market is manufactured and packed in a hygienic way by a reputed company having AIAO barcode accredited by USA.  But MO 1 appears to be a local product as no such details as indicated above are available in MO 1 packet.  The above details are easily noticeable if the purchaser  verifies the packet. 

10.     It is further to be pointed out that the complainant has no case that the product was not exhibited for sale publically and it was not made available to him to verify the price, quality, name of the company, date of manufacture etc printed on the packet.  The complainant has also no case that the opposite party or any of employees working as sales man has compelled him to purchase MO 2 product from the opposite party outlet without verify the MRP and other details printed on the packet.  After seeing the higher MRP on MO 2 packet the complainant could have very well abstain from purchasing the same.  The 1^st opposite party would content in the written version that the complainant initially purchased ½ kg of horse gram from the local market and very well knew its price and later he rushed to the 1^st opposite party Supplyco outlet and purchase same quantity horse gram for a higher price which itself would indicate that he has convinced of the high quality of the product and also fact that it was manufactured by a premium company packed without touching human hand in a hygienic way and process the product with taste guard and convinced himself that MO 2 is a comparatively a better product than MO 1.  We find force in the above contention

11.     It is further to be point out that the complainant has no case that the 1^st opposite party has sold MO 2 product without exhibiting the MRP or without exhibiting specification of the product nor the packet contained less weight than the printed weight of  500 gm.  He is also not having any case that the product purchased from 1^st opposite party is a substandard product.  The complainant is also not having a  case that the 1^st opposite party has realized more price  than the MRP exhibited on the packet.  Even according to the complainant the opposite party levied lessor price than the MRP.  Selling product below MRP shown on the packet exhibiting it nature, quality name and address of manufacturing company date of manufacture and expiry date etc is not an illegal act on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the same would not come under the definition of  deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice as alleged in the complaint. The complainant has miserably failed to establish that there is any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of any of the opposite parties. 

12.     On evaluating the entire materials available on record we find no merit in the complaint and the same is only to be dismissed.  The point answered accordingly.

Point 3

            In the result complaint stands dismissed.  Parties are directed to suffer respective costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 24^th  day of  November 2021.

STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-

                                                                   Forwarded/by Order

                                                                        Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1             : cash bill dated 26.12.2018

Ext.P2             : Tax invoice dated 26.12.2018

Ext.P3             : Cash invoice dated 16.08.2021

MO 1              :  packet containing Horse gram purchased from Anugraha Home mart,

                           Edappallycotta

MO 2              : packet containing Horse gram purchased from Supplyco Super Market,

                        Edappallycotta

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil