IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi,<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 385 & 386/09 DATED 07.12.2009<br /> COMMON ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant in C.C.385/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant in C.C.386/2009 Girish.P., S/o Pichandi, No.534, 19th Cross, 4th Main, Vidyaranyapuram, Mysore-570008.<br /> Smt.Geetha.C.B. <br /> W/o Prasanna.A.S., 16-A, J Block, Mallige Road, Kuvempunagar, <br /> Mysore-570023.<br /> (By Sri D.S.S. Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party in both cases is same The Manager, Trinethra Super Retail Pvt. Ltd., More Mega Store, Situated at Narayana Shaastry Road, Devaraja Mohalla, Mysore-570001.<br /> (By Sri M.D.J. Advocate)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaints : 21.10.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 04.11.2009<br /> Date of order : 07.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 3 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The opposite party in both cases is common. Though, the complainants are different, the facts alleged in the complaints as well as the defence of the opposite party in the version being similar for convenience, both the complaints are being disposed off by the common order.<br /> <br /> 2. The complainants have filed the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.1.50 the extra amount charged in respect of purchase of Dabur Babool Tooth paste and a sum of Rs.8,000/- compensation for Unfair Trade Practice and Rs.2,000/- cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 3. It is alleged in the complaints, that on 08/11.09.2009, the respective complainants purchased Dabur Babool Tooth paste of 380 gm. and on verification of the bill, the complainants found the opposite party collected Rs.1.50 extra without any reason. The price mentioned on the cover is Rs.52/- only inclusive of all taxes. The opposite party has issued bill and charged Rs.53.50. When the complainants enquired about the same with opposite party, no clarification was given and the extra amount of Rs.1.50 not returned. The opposite party adhered to trade mal practice. The opposite party had done similar mistakes earlier also. The opposite party is deliberately doing such acts to gain more profit by cheating the customers. Said act constitute adherence to unjust enrichment, unfair trade practice and negligent service. By the said act of the opposite party, the complainant financially cheated and also feeling of being cheated and breach of trust. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaints. <br /> <br /> 4. The opposite party in the versions denied the allegation of the complainants that, price of the Dabur Babool Tooth paste of 380 gm. is Rs.52/- and that Rs.1.50 extra has been collected. It is contended that, MRP of the said toot paste is Rs.54/- and the opposite party has charged only Rs.53.50 giving discount. There is no deficiency in service. Opposite party has also denied, it has adhered to the trade mal practice. It is also denied that, the complainants suffered loss. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. To prove the facts alleged in the complaints, the respective complainants have filed their affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, the Manager of the opposite party in both the cases has filed his affidavits and produced tooth paste cover. We have heard the arguments of both the learned advocates for the complainants and the opposite party and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 6. Now, the points for our consideration are as under.<br /> 1. Whether the complainants have proved that the opposite party adhered in trade mal practice by charging Rs.1.50 extra on the tooth paste in question and that they are entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in the affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. Point no. 1:- The allegation of the complainants is that, the opposite party collected Rs.53.50 for Dabur Babool Tooth paste of 380 gm as per the bills produced by the complainants, is not in dispute.<br /> <br /> 9. The complainants claim that, the MRP of the said tooth paste was Rs.52/-, but the opposite party collected Rs.53.50 and hence, Rs.1.50 collected extra. This fact is stated by the respective complainants in their affidavits and tooth paste cover is produced. On the said cover, MRP is shown as Rs.52/- inclusive of all taxes. <br /> <br /> 10. On the other hand, the opposite party has contended that, price of the tooth paste in question was Rs.54/- inclusive of all taxes and hence, the tooth paste are sold to the complainants for Rs.53.50 only giving 50 paise rebate and there is no collection of extra amount. That fact is stated by the Manager of the opposite party in the affidavit and tooth paste cover is produced, whereon MRP is shown as Rs.54/- inclusive of all taxes.<br /> <br /> 11. So far concerned to the correctness of the tooth paste cover or rapper produced by the complainant and the opposite party, there is no dispute. But, the important point that needs to be decided is, what was the MRP of the tooth paste as on the date when the complainants purchased?<br /> <br /> 12. On the tooth paste cover produced by the complainants, batch No.043, 05/09 is mentioned. Whereas on the tooth paste cover produced by the opposite party, batch No. is mentioned as 208, 08/09. Hence, the tooth paste manufactured in the month of May 2009, the price was Rs.52/- and that manufactured inthe month of August 2009 was Rs.54/-. To clarify the point, advocate for the complainant had served the notice on the opposite party under order 12 rule 8 CPC to produce sale and purchase of Dabur Babool Toothpaste from May 2009 to October 2009, the bills for the said period, stock register, inward and outward register for the said period, and so also statement of accounts from supplier during the said period. The opposite party has not produced the said documents. If these documents were produced, certainly if really as contended by the opposite party the MRP of the tooth paste was Rs.54/- that could have been found place in the documents referred to above. For non-production of said documents by the opposite party, adverse inference shall have to be drawn.<br /> <br /> 13. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that, as claimed by the complainants, the opposite party has collected a sum of Rs.1.50 extra on the Dabur Babool Tooth paste than the MRP. Certainly, it amounts to unfair trade practice. Said act of the opposite party certainly enrich it not that for sale of two tooth paste to the complainants, but opposite party might have sold number of pastes as it is Mega Store.<br /> <br /> 14. Accordingly, our finding is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 15. Point No. 2:- From the discussions made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order: <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Both the complaints are partly allowed.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.1.50 to each of the complainants, within a month from the date of the order.<br /> <br /> 3. Also, the opposite party shall pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- to each of the complainants for unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and inconvenience, within a month from the date of the order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a.<br /> <br /> 4. So also, the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- cost of the proceedings to each of the complainants, within a month from the date of the order.<br /> 5. The original order shall be kept in CC-385/2009 and the Xerox copy in CC-386/2009.<br /> <br /> 6. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 7th December 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />