Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/388/2013

S.Jeyaraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Arasu Medicals - Opp.Party(s)

In person

18 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :  THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                           PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                  TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                                MEMBER

                                                                                   

F.A.NO.388/2013

 

(Against the order in CC.No.15/2013, dated 12.08.2013 on the file of DCDRF, Coimbatore)

 

DATED THIS THE 18^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015

 

S.Jayaraman,

S/o.Shanmuganadar,

6/125, 3^rd Street,

P.M.Samy Colony,                                        Appellant / Complainant

R.S.Puram,                                                  In person

Coimbatore 641 002.

-vs-

 

The Proprietor,

Arasu Medicals,                                            M/s.S.S.Rajesh

No.159,Maruthamalai Main Road,                   Counsel for Respondent/ Opp.party

P.N.Pudur,

Coimbatore 641 041.

 

          The appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint.  Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying for to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.15/2013, dated 12.08.2013.     

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 09.01.2015, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

 

A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

2.       The complainant having attracted by the advertisement of the opposite party medical shop giving rebate of 18% for the purchase of medicines on 4.11.2012 purchased Benadryl syrup having MRP Rs.63/- and Zyrtec-10 Medicines for Rs.37.30 for which they collected Rs.90.50 by giving 5% rebate for Benadryl syrup and 18% for Zyrtec-10 and thereby the complainant sent a letter seeking explanation and also sent another letter by speed post on 10.12.2012 for which no reply was received and thereby the opposite party have not given 18% of the rebate as advertised and practicing unfair trade practice and thereby alleging deficiency in service claiming Rs.48.19 difference in rebate rate and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and for costs filed the complaint.

 3.      The opposite party denying the allegations contended that due to competition among the pharmacies they are forced to give advertisements for selling medicines with certain rebates and they advertised rebate upto 18% for the medicines and 5% for other items like cosmetics, OTC items which are salable without prescriptions of the medical practitioner in which only a small percentage of profit will be available and further they have made advertisements for rebate of medicines upto 18% and for other items upto 5% and not exactly at the specified percentage of 18% or 5% as claimed by the complainant and the rebate is depends upon the nature of purchase to that extent of maximum rebate of 18% or 5% and thereby there was no deficiency in service.

 4.      The District Forum after an enquiry on the basis of both sides materials accepting the contentions of the opposite party dismissed the complaint.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the complainant filed this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint without taking into consideration of the mal practices adopted by the opposite parties and by cheating the consumer by not giving rebate as advertised and no reply was given by the opposite party and they have not at all approached directly as alleged by them and thereby the appeal is to be allowed.

6.       We have heard the appellant party in person’s contentions and gone through the written submissions and also heard the arguments of the respondent/opposite party and carefully considered the materials including the order passed by the District Forum in this regard.  It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant had purchased certain medicines from the opposite party under the impression that he would get 18% rebate as per the advertisements under Ex.B2 and admittedly the opposite party has given only 5% of rebate for the purchase of Benadryl Syrup under Ex.A1 and Zyrtec-10 for the price of Rs.37.30 and Benadryl syrup Rs.63/- for which rebate of 5% alone given for Benadryl for Rs.3.15 and for Zyrtec-10 18% rebate of Rs.6.71 was given.  The contentions of the complainant is that they have advertised rebate of 18% for all the medicines and relied upon some other medical shops bills, advertisements relating to Thulasi Pharmacy under Ex.A17 and A18.  The opposite party relied upon Ex.B1 which is copy of Ex.A1 and B2.  On perusal of Ex.B2 advertisements in which it is mentioned that the rebate- for medicines upto 18% ( as advertised in Tamil), for food and Cosmetics upto 5% and on that basis alone the concession was given to the complainant and thereby the opposite party denied the allegations that they have adopted unfair trade practice by giving advertisements for the rebate of specified percentage of 18% and 5% respectfully.  But the advertisement is meant for those rebates only upto 18% and 5% respectively and not exactly for 18% or 5% as alleged by the complainant.  The complainant also filed other pharmacy bills under Ex.A9 and A18 of one Thulasi Pharmacy and Ex.A10 to A14, A2 and A3.  On perusal of those documents  of Arokya pharmacy Bills under Ex.A10 to A14 at the corner they have mentioned 18% discount and in all the bills in Thulasi Pharmacy bills 10% discount were given for certain medicines as per Ex.A9 and A17 & A18 and thereby it is clear that the Arokya Pharmacy has given specified 18% as advertised under Ex.A2 and other bills and Thulasi pharmacy has given 10% in their bills and they have not given 18% as alleged by the complainant and no rules or regulations to control the pharmacies to sell their products with specified rebate and due to competition if they sell their products only with certain rebates and concessions, it is for the consumers to be aware of purchase such things and as per the legal term CAVEAT EMPTOR the purchaser must be aware and conscious and in this case also its applies in purchasing the goods and as per the contentions of the opposite parties they have not sold the products above the MRP rates and not sold the products against the advertisements as in the advertisements Ex.B2 only giving rebates upto 18% for the medicines and upto 5% for food and other cosmetics items rebates were given and thereby even though the complainant alleged in the complaint in general regarding the mal practice being adopted by the pharmacies as it is not proved by specified records and materials we are of the view that the District Forum by taking into consideration of all the relevant materials passed well considered order in which we find no error or infirmity to interfere with the same and thereby this appeal deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly,

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in CC.No.15/2013 dated 12.08.2013.

          There will be no order as to costs in the appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                       A.K.ANNAMALAI

   MEMBER                                                       PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER