Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/76/2017

S.Jayaraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Sree MRV 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.76/2017

(Against the order passed in C.C.No.21/2014, dated 20.05.2016 on the file of the District Commission, Thiruvallur.

 

FRIDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF APRIL 2021.

                                                                                                              

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,

      Sri MRV Super Market,  

      256, G.N.T. Road,

      Sengundram

      Chennai – 600 052.  

 

2.   Marketing General Manager,

      Britannia Gardens,

      Old Airport Road,

      Vimanapura,

      Bangalore – 560 017.                                                                                                    Respondents/Opposite Parties 

 

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

Counsel for Responent-1/Opposite Party-1 :  Notice served & Called absent.

Counsel for the Respondent -2/

          Opposite Party -2                         :  M/s. R. Saravanakumar, Advocate. 

 

          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.21/2014,  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 Britannia Bour Born 75 grams Biscuit from the 1^st opposite party on 20.03.2014.   In the biscuit wrapper sheet, Rs.12/- was the display price printed on it and the same was struck off instead Rs.10/- was printed indicating in the bottom, Rs.2/-was given as discount. But, the actual MRP rate of the biscuit itself was only Rs.10/- and if it was so, the biscuit ought to have been sold for a sum of Rs.08/-by giving a discount of Rs.2/-.  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 biscuit as Rs.12/- in the wrapper and by striking off the same again it was printed as Rs.10/-.  But, the actual price of the biscuit itself is only Rs.10/-. 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 25.03.2014 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 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 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 case of the complainant was resisted by the 1^st opposite party by filing a written version by contending inter alia that the 1^st opposite party is only a dealer and the prices of the biscuits are fixed by the ultimate manufacturer, the 2^nd opposite party and hence the complaint as against 1^st opposite party is to be dismissed.  The 1^st opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and the complainant has not approached the Consumer Commission with clean hands and only to extract money from the 1^st opposite party the complainant has filed this complaint and hence the complaint is to be dismissed as against the 1^st opposite party.

5.        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 biscuit from the 1^st opposite party. In the biscuit’s wrapper price was printed as Rs.12/- and after the same was being struck off Rs.10/-was printed as its price indicating that Rs.2/- was given as discount. Any common man with ordinary prudence, on seeing the wrapper, would understand that the price of the biscuit is Rs.10/-. Hence, the contention of the complainant that if the discount of Rs.2/- is given, the 1^st opposite party should have collected only Rs.08/- per packet is absolutely 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 biscuit purchased either being its quantity,  price or quality there is no need or compulsion for him to purchase the biscuit manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.  However, the complainant, for the reasons best known to him, chose to buy the biscuit packet 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. 

6.       In order to prove their case before the District Consumer Commission, the complainant and the opposite parties have filed their proof affidavits independently and Exhibit B1 was marked on the side of the 2^nd opposite party and no document was marked on the side of the complainant and the 1^st opposite party.                   

7.        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. Aggrieved over the order of the dismissal of his complaint, the complainant has preferred this appeal before this Commission.   

8.       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 above, we refrain ourselves from reiterating the same any further in this appeal and only the facts which are germane are discussed hereunder.

9.          It is the contention of the complainant that he had purchased a Britannia Bourn Born biscuit on 20.03.2014 from the 1^st opposite party. The biscuit packet’s wrapper displayed the price printed the same as of Rs.12/- and after the same was found struck off, Rs.10/- was printed in the said wrapper giving an impression to the customers as if they offered discount as though the actual price of the biscuit packet was Rs.12/- which are selling for Rs.10/- by giving discount of Rs.2/-.  It is the further case of the complainant that MRP price of the Britannia Bourn biscuit packet itself was only Rs.10/-. Hence, when the biscuits 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 biscuit 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 this 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.             

10.        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, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 

11.        In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission, Thiruvallur made in C.C.No.21/2014, 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