Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/70/2017

S.Jayaraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor ,D.R. Super Market & anr. - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

29 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

 

    Present:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH ,                                     PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. R. VENKATESAPERUMAL,                                                       MEMBER

 

F.A.No.69/2017

(Against the order passed in C.C.No.12/2014, dated 20.05.2016 on the file of the District Commission, Thiruvallur.

 

 FRIDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF APRIL - 2022.

 

S. Jeyaraman,

S/o. Shanmuga Nadar,

Door No.6/125, 3^rd Street,

P.M. Samy Colony,

R.S. Puram,

Coimbatore  – 641 002.                                                           Appellant/Complainant

                                       

                      Vs

 

1.   Proprietor,                                             

      Margin Super Market,  

      169, G.N.T. Road,

      Sengundram

      Chennai – 600 052.  

 

2.   Hindustan Unilever Ltd.,

      Unilever House, P.O. Box No.14760, 

      B.D.Sawant Marg, Chakala

      Andheriee, Mumbai – 400 099.                                         Respondents/Opposite Parties 

 

Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant   :  Appellant appeared party-in person.    

Counsel for Respondent 2/                    :  M/s. I. Maithili Associations, Advocates.

    Opposite Party-2:   

For Respondent-1/Opposite Party          :   Served & Called Absent.   

 

              This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 27.04.2022 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-

ORDER

HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT.   

 

1.        This appeal has been filed under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the District Commission, Thiruvallur made in C.C.No.12/2014, dated 20.05.2016, dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant herein.  

2.       For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvallur. (In short, “District Commission”). 

3.     The brief facts which are necessitated to decide this appeal are as follows;-  The  case of the complainant is that he purchased a Brook bond 3 Roses Natural Care – 250 gram Tea Dust from the 1^st opposite party on 03.03.2014.  In the Tea Dust packet’s wrapper sheet, Rs.130/- was the display price printed on it and in the top of the same it had also been mentioned that “ save Rs.10/-“ was printed indicating Rs.10/-was given as discount. But, the actual MRP rate of the said Tea Dust itself was only Rs.120/- and if it was so, the Tea Dust ought to have been sold for a sum of Rs.110/-by giving a discount of Rs.10/- but it was sold for Rs.119. Hence, according to the contention of the complainant/appellant, there is an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Only for the purpose of marketing, they have printed the price of the Tea Dust as Rs.130/- and below the same it was printed as to save Rs.10/-. But, the actual price of the Tea Dust itself is only Rs.120/-. Thus, there is an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complainant issued a notice to the opposite parties on 22.03.2014 but after receipt of the said notice, the opposite parties did not send any reply. Hence, the complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Commission for a direction to the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards transport expenses incurred by the complainant and another sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties.     

4.       The 1^st opposite party was set ex-parte before the District Commission. The 2^nd opposite filed a written version stating that the complainant is put to strictly proof of the allegations made against the 2^nd opposite party.  It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased a Brook bond 3 Roses Natural Care – 250 gram Tea Dust from the 1^st opposite party. In the wrapper of the above said Rea Dust packet’s price was printed as Rs.130/- and on top of the same it was printed as to save Rs.10/- indicating that Rs.10/- was given as discount. Any common man with ordinary prudence, on seeing the wrapper, would understand that the price of the Brook bond 3 Roses Natural Care – 250 gram Tea Dust is Rs.130/-. Hence, the contention of the complainant that if the discount of Rs.10/- is given, the 1^st opposite party should have collected only Rs.110/- per packet is utterly baseless. Unfair trade practice attributed to the 2^nd opposite party is factually and legally untenable. It is not out of place to mention that if the complainant was not satisfied in any aspects about the “Tea Dust” purchased either its quantity, price or quality there is no need or compulsion for him to purchase the Tea Dust manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.  However, the complainant, for the reasons best known to him, chose to buy the a Brook bond 3 Roses Natural Care Tea Dust packets again and again in different parts of the State and filed the complaints before the various District Commissions as well as before this Commission. There is lack of bonafide motive on the part of the complainant which had resulted in undue hardship and inconvenience to the opposite parties. Hence, the 2^nd opposite party sought for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs. 

5.     In order to prove their case before the District Consumer Commission, the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party have filed their proof affidavits independently and Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the 2^nd opposite party.                 

6.       After analyzing the evidences adduced by both parties, the District Commission has decided that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs.2000/- payable to the 2^nd opposite party by the complainant. Aggrieved over the order of the dismissal, the complainant has preferred this appeal before this Commission.   

7.       Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. Keeping in mind the submissions made on either side, we have carefully considered the same. Since we have discussed the facts in detail, we refrain ourselves from reiterating the same any further in this appeal and only the facts which are germane are discussed hereunder.

8.         It is the contention of the complainant that he had purchased a Brook bond 3 Roses Natural Care – 250 gram Tea Dust on 03.03.2014 from the 1^st opposite party. The Tea Dust Packet’s wrapper displayed the price printed the same as of Rs.130/-as price  and on  top of the above it was printed “ save Rs.10/-“ giving an impression to the customers as if they offered discount as though the actual price of the Tea Dust packet was Rs.130/- which are selling for Rs.120/- by giving discount of Rs.10/-.  It is the further case of the complainant that MRP price of the Brook bond 3 Roses Natural Care – 250 gram Tea Dust itself was only Rs.120/-. Hence, when the Tea Dusts packets were sold beyond the MRP rate, there is an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  But, we are not inclined to accept the claim of the complainant for the reason that the opposite parties have not sold the Tea Dusts packets over the MRP rate and therefore this Commission cannot find any fault with the opposite parties and accordingly we do not find any deficiency in service on their part. This is yet another complaint among the several complaints filed by the complainant in order to waste the precious time of the Commission. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the submission made by the complainant except to confirm the order of the District Commission.  It is seen that similar nature of the complaints were filed in the earlier occasions and all the complaints were dismissed by this Commission by making a common order passed by this Commission in F.A.Nos.170/2019 & 140/2019 on 19.12.2019.  The above decision of this Commission is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.             

9.        Therefore, in view of the above discussions held by this Commission, we come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore we do not find any error or infirmity in the order passed by the District Commission.  Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.   

 10.      In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission, Thiruvallur made in C.C.No.12/2014, dated 20.05.2016. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

          

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL,                                                               R. SUBBIAH,

           MEMBER.                                                                                    PRESIDENT. 

 

Index: Yes/No

TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/April/2022