This complaint  having come up for final hearing before us on  30.10.2014  on perusal of the material records  and on hearing the  arguments of  Thiru. K.Shudhakar, party in person  for the complainant and Thiru.V.Krishnasamy, the counsel for the opposite party  and remaining  set exparte  and having stood  before us for consideration, till this day the Forum  passed the following

By President, Thiru..K.Anbazhagan, B.A.B.L., 

                       This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act 1986. 

2) The brief facts of the case of the complainant: -

The complainant has purchasedone Philips tube light “Trulite”model with extra power at the cost of Rs.100/- vide Bill No.11126 dated 02.05.2014.The tube light was packed with a wrapperand MRP was fixed at Rs.80/-.The complainanton the very same day questioned the sale of tube light at excess amount of Rs.20/- than the MRPprice, but the shop supervisor refusedto refund the excess amount of Rs.20/-collected by them.The complainant issued a legal notice on 4.5.2014 and the samewas served on 6.5.2014 and there was no response from the opposite party.The opposite party is not entitled to collect the excess amount of Rs.20/- thanthe MRP rate printed on the wrapper of thesaid tube light.The above said act clearly provesdeficiency in service and unfair trade practice which isnot permitted by the law.

3) Hence the complainant prayed to refund of Rs.20/- excessively collected by the opposite party;toaward cost of litigationRs.5000/-; andRs.80,000/-towardsdamages for mental agony and sufferings.

4) The opposite party engaged Mr.V.Krishnasamy, Advocate, but in spite of three adjournments that the opposite party has not filed written version and hence set exparte on 30.09.2014.

5) The pointsfor determination in this case are:

                        1) Whether  there is  any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the 

                             part of the  opposite     party?

                       2)  To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

                    6) POINTS 1 & 2:  The complainant has  filed proof affidavit and written arguments On the side of the complainant  Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 were marked.  Ex.A.1 is cash bill issued  by the opposite party dated 02.05.2014 which reveals the sale price of the tube light is mentioned as Rs.100/-.  Ex.A.2 is legal notice issued by the complainant’s   Advocate to the opposite  party dated 4.5.2014.  Ex.A.3  is acknowledgement card for the proof of service  to the above said Ex.A.2. Ex.A.4 is  photo copy of the  outer cover or wrapper of the tube light.  Ex.A.5 is  the original wrapper or  outer cover, for the purchase of the  above said Philips  “Trulite” tube light. In which the  MRP was printed at Rs.80/- only inclusive of all taxes. 

                  7) The complainant appearing  party in person has filed a literature for the definition  of MRP,  it means  maximum retail price (MRP) is the price at which the product shall be sold in retail and which include all taxes levied on the product.  The  Standards of Weights and Measures  Act, 1976, (the Act) mandates that the price be  printed on the package whereas the Standards  of Weights and Measures  (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 ( the Rules) go impermissibly further by stipulating that price charged cannot exceed the printed price.  It is an offence to sell a product at a price higher than MRP.

Difference between the Actual price of goods and the MRP.

                    MRP of the product is inclusive of all taxes and the profit margins of wholesalers  and retailers.  This includes the local taxes which may vary according to place.  Thus at places where local taxes is low,  the difference between  the selling price and the MRP allows for huge margin and retailer  may sell the product for price below the MRP.  There are no standard rules governing fixing up of MRP of the product unless it is a ration commodity.  Manufacturer can decide the price and MRP has to be printed on the product.  No wholesale dealer or retailer shall  obliterate, smudge or alter  the retail sale price  indicated  by the manufacturer or the packer or the importer. So even one or two rupee extra charged by retailers citing various excuses like refrigeration cost  and transport costs are just ways to fleece the consumers.  

                        8) It is clear from  the above definition that the complainant has sold the tube light for higher price than the MRP price and hence coming  under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.  There is  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

                      9)  In the e result, the complaint is  allowed.   The  opposite party  is  directed   to pay  the excess collection  amount of  Rs.20/- than the MRP  rate  to the complainant. The opposite party  is directed  to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by  him  owing to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand  only)  towards cost of his litigation within  30 days from the date of this order failing  which it shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the  date  of this order  till the date of its realization.

         This order was dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by me on this  06th   day of  November     2014.