Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/78

Gaurav Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Trump Plaza - Opp.Party(s)

Gurjagpal

08 Jan 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       78

Date of Institution: 12.06.2014

Date of Decision :    8.01.2015

 

Gaurav Gupta aged about 21 years s/o Sh Mithu Ram Gupta r/o # 17201, Aggarwal Colony, Bathinda.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

...Complainant

Versus

 

1. Trump Plaza, Zaiqa Family Restaurant, Kotkapura Road, Faridkot (Punjab)through its authorized signatory.

2. Redbull India Pvt Ltd, 1^st Floor, B-Wing, 215 Athuim, Kanakia Spaces Chakala, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059, India.

                                                                  .........Opposite Parties(Ops)                                                            

    

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum:     Sh Ashwani Kumar Mehta, President,

   Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

   Sh P L Singla, Member.

    

   Present:     Sh Gurjagpal Singh,  Adv Ld Counsel for complainant,                                      Sh Vinod Monga, Adv Ld Counsel for OP-1,

                     Sh Amit Mittal, Adv Ld Counsel for OP-2.

   (A K Mehta, President)

    

   1                                                        Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Trump Plaza, Zaiqa Family Restaurant etc/OPs seeking directions to OPs to refund the excess charged amount on account of overcharging and pay Rs 50,000/- as damages on account of mental tension and harassment and Rs 10,000/- on account of fee of Counsel for issuance of legal notice and Rs 20,000/- as litigation expenses.

   2                                                        Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant, a law student, purchased a can of Redbull Energy Drink on 25.04.2014 from OP-1 for drinking purpose; that retail price on can was printed as 95/-, but OP-1 charged Rs 150/- vide cash memo/bill dt 25.04.2014 without signing the bill and when complainant requested OP-1 to take the exact amount and modify the bill, OP did not bother to listen the request of complainant and illegally charged excess amount, rather employee of OP-1 misbehaved with complainant; that complainant also recorded the conversation that took place between employee of OP-1 and complainant in this regard; that charging of excess amount by OP-1 amounts to unfair trade practice and not modifying the bill amounts to deficiency in service and this act of Ops has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant besides causing undue financial loss to the complainant; that complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs 50,000/- for mental tension and harassment alongwith Rs 10,000/- as fee of counsel for issuance of legal notice besides Rs 20,000/- as cost of the complaint. Hence, the complaint.

   3                                          The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 18.06.2014, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                        On receipt of notice, OP-1 appeared in Forum through Counsel and filed reply taking preliminary objections that alleged invoice does not pertain to OP-1 as OP-1 never issued such invoice and did not sell the alleged product; that invoice has been manipulated by complainant to extract money from Ops under the garb of false allegations; that complainant is not the consumer of OP-1 and complaint is filed with ulterior motive by levelling false allegations and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, OP-1 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and reiterated that answering OP did not sell any can of Redbull drink to complainant on 25.04.2014 and bill no. 921 dt 25.04.2014 has not been issued by OP-1 and the same is fabricated; that as OP-1 has not sold Redbull drink to complainant, therefore, question of charging excess amount does not arise at all; that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                             OP-2 also filed reply through counsel taking preliminary objections that OP-2 is the importer and distributor of product Red bull Energy drink, but is not concerned with alleged sale by the retailer; that the product imported and distributed by Op-2 states the MRP on which it was required to be further sold by retailer and retailer is bound by applicable laws including provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 to sell the product on such MRP and that there is no legal obligation on OP-2 to monitor any breach of laws by retailer; that complainant is not consumer of OP-2 as complainant has not purchased said product from OP-2 or from its franchisee. On merits, OP-2 asserted that Can of said product had MRP of Rs 95/- printed on it as required under the provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and allegations of unfair trade practice pertains to OP-1 as complainant purchased said product from OP-1; that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering OP; that the act of overcharging also pertains to OP-1 and OP-1 is required to respond it; that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP-2. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs

6                                  Parties were given proper opportunity to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-7 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                         In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh Varun Kumar Ex OP-1/1 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OP-1. Ld Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh Anirudhara Karan Singh Ex Op-2/1 and document Ex OP-2/2 and closed the same.

8                                        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

 9                             The Ld Counsel for complainant contended that complainant purchased a can of Red Bull Energy Drink from OP-1and the maximum retail price mentioned on the can was Rs 95/- whereas OP-1 charged Rs 150/- for the same. He contended that complainant protested for excess price but the employees of OP-1 misbehaved with the complainant and pressurized him to pay excess amount of Rs 150/- for the Red Bull Energy Drink. He contended that complainant also recorded the conversation between him and the employees of OP-1, but inspite of that, employees of OP-1 charged the excess price for the Red Bull Energy Drink. He contended that the conduct of the employees of Op-1 have caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and complainant even issued a legal notice to Ops for charging excess amount but even then no action was taken by the Ops and ultimately, complainant had to file the complaint in hand and as such, complaint is required to be allowed and complainant is entitled to refund of excess price charged from him and also entitled to recover compensation for harassment and mental agony and also compensation on account of litigation expenses and issuance of legal notice.

10                                  The ld counsel for OP-1 contended that complaint is totally false and fabricated as no such occurrence has taken place. He also contended that complainant has not purchased Red Bull Energy Drink from OP-1 on the alleged date of occurrence nor OP-1 issued the bill Ex C-2 and the same is forged and fabricated bill. He also contended that OP-1 never received any legal notice and OP-1 has been falsely arrayed as party. He also contended that complainant has not quantified compensation or litigation expenses and complainant has not suffered any financial loss nor the same is proved on file and complaint appears to be a motivated complaint for the purpose of extracting money from OP-1 and as such, complaint is false and is liable to be dismissed.

11                                  The ld counsel for OP-2 contended that OP-2 is not at all concerned with the complaint in hand as OP-2 only supplied the Red Bull Energy Drink and OP-2 has complied with the Government rules by mentioning maximum retail price on the can of Red Bull Energy Drink and OP-2 has no check on the retailer though retailer is to charge the maximum price mentioned on the can and if any retailer charges excess price, then, action of the retailer in charging excess price is not the responsibility of OP-2. He contended that complaint against OP-2 is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as such.

12                                              Complainant has proved his affidavit in support of his complaint and reiterated all the allegations of the complaint in his affidavit. Complainant has also proved bill Ex C-2 vide which OP-1 sold the Red Bull Energy Drink to the complainant on 25.04.2014 and bill shows that OP-1 charged Rs 130/- for the Red Bull Energy Drink. OP-2 is supplier of Red Bull Energy Drink and OP-2 have mentioned in its written statement that the maximum price of can of Red Bull Energy Drink is Rs 95/-. It means that complainant has proved on file that OP-1 has charged Rs 35/- in excess to maximum retail price mentioned on the can. OP-1 has made flat denial of the allegations mentioned in the complaint. OP-1 has even denied the service of legal notice whereas complainant has proved legal notice Ex C-3 sent to Ops through registered cover vide receipt Ex C-4 and C-5. OP-2 has admitted the receipt of legal notice, which was sent on the same day as was sent to OP-1. It rather shows that OP-1 is wrongly denying the service of notice. Later on, complainant also attached certificate of service of legal notice through postal authorities, which shows that OP-1 has received the legal notice. OP-1 has also simply denied the issuance of bill Ex C-2 and rather asserted that bill is forged and fabricated. OP-1 filed written statement on 8.08.2014 and it means that bill Ex C-2 came to the notice of OP-1 before 8.08.2014 but no action has been taken by OP-1 against complainant. If OP-1 was of view that bill Ex C-2 allegedly issued by OP-1 is forged and fabricated bill, then OP-1 should have taken action against complainant for forging or fabricating the bill. Silence on the part of OP-1 indirectly appears to be admission on the part of OP-1. Otherwise also, TIN No is mentioned on the bill Ex C-2 and complainant has produced the letter of Excise and Taxation Office, Bathinda showing that TIN No mentioned on bill was allotted to OP-1 Hotel Trumplaza, Kotkapura Road, Faridkot. It all shows that OP-1 has falsely denied the receipt of notice and falsely denied the issuance of bill Ex C-2. Otherwise, complainant has sufficiently proved his case on file and OP-1 has failed to rebut the same. The ld counsel for complainant contended that no relief has been claimed against OP-2 as the purpose of arraying OP-2 as party was only to know the maximum retail price of Red Bull Energy Drink and OP-2 has mentioned in the written statement that maximum price of Red Bull Energy Drink is Rs 95/-. It clearly shows that OP-1 has charged Rs 35/- as excess price for the Red Bull Energy Drink though complainant alleged that he was charged Rs 150/- for the Red Bull Energy Drink whereas Rs 20/-was charged as VAT on the price as mentioned in the bill Ex C-2. Otherwise, the evidence brought on file also proves that complainant must have suffered harassment and mental agony due to excess charging of price and even had to file the complaint in the Forum and had to enter into conversation with the employees of the OP-1 and as such, complainant is entitled to compensation. The ld counsel for complainant contended that Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has granted Rs 50 lacs in Revision Petition No. 4090 of 2012 titled as D K Chopra petitioner Vs Sanck Bar, Chennai Airport, Chennai respondent for charging excess price of Red Bull Energy Drink.

   13                                  I have gone through the citation referred by the ld counsel for the complainant. Hon’ble National Commission in fact granted damages to the extent of Rs 10,000/- only and not Rs 50 lacs as contended by the ld counsel for the complainant.

14                                       In the light of above discussion, the complainant has succeeded in proving his case on the file. Therefore, complaint is allowed against OP-1 and complainant is held entitled to refund of excess price and is also held entitled to grant of Rs 5000/-as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 2000/-on account of litigation expenses. OP-1 is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, complainant is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per anum on the due amount from the date of complaint till realization.  Complaint against OP-2 is dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Forum:

  Dated: 8.01.2015                

       Member                      Member                President                       (Parampal Kaur)    (P Singla)              (A K Mehta)