Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
D.K. CHOPRA - Appellant
Versus
SNACK BAR - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 4090 of 2012 from Order dated 10.4.2012 in First Appeal No. 118/2011 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu Chennai at Bench-II with IA/1/2012 (Delay)
Decided on : 04-03-2014
Ms. Tushti, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Bidin Kalappa, Advocate, for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of stall owners to adhere to Maximum Retail Price (MRP) regulations and protect consumers from exploitation.
Headnote:
MRP - Consumer Protection - 139 (2007) DLT 7 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to Maximum Retail Price (MRP) and the obligations of stall owners at airports. It highlighted the authority reported in Federation of Hotels & Restaurants Association of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 139 (2007) DLT 7, to emphasize the difference between hotels, restaurants, and stalls in terms of services provided to customers. The court also emphasized the need to protect consumers from arbitrary exploitation by traders and the obligation of stall owners to adhere to MRP regulations.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Snack Bar at the airport, charged double the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) for a red-bull energy drink, leading to a complaint filed by the consumer. The District Forum and State Commission dismissed the complaint, citing lack of evidence for MRP and non-contestation by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had charged double the MRP, exploiting consumers, and working in cahoots with the Airport Authorities. It set aside the previous orders and allowed the complaint, directing the respondent to pay compensation to the complainant and deposit a significant sum with the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Issues: The issues revolved around the overcharging of the red-bull energy drink by the Snack Bar at the airport, lack of evidence for MRP, and the non-contestation of the case by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the obligation of stall owners to adhere to MRP regulations, protect consumers from exploitation, and highlighted the difference between hotels, restaurants, and stalls in terms of services provided to customers.
Final Decision: The court allowed the complaint, directing the respondent to pay compensation to the complainant and deposit a significant sum with the Consumer Welfare Fund.
ORDER
Mr. Justice J.M. Malik, Presiding Member -We were flummoxed to know that service providers/Traders, charge more money, almost, the double, from the consumers , with impunity. No 'special law or rule, saw the light of the day, in favour of the Stall-owners, at the Airports.
2. The respondent has a Snack Bar, a Unit of Saptagiri Restaurant at Kamraj Domestic Terminal, Chennai Airport, Chennai. Snack Bar is neither a Restaurant nor has place to sit. It sells the goods, as if it were a Stall. It sold red-bull energy drink , to Shri D.K. Chopra, the complainant/petitioner. Its MRP is Rs. 75, but it was sold at Rs. 150, per can and Rs. 300 for two cans, on 1.11.2009. It again sold one red-bull energy drink , at Rs. 140 on the same day, to Sh. D.K. Chopra, Resident of Delhi. Legal notice was sent, but it did not ring the bell. Ultimately, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, with the prayer to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 for the harassment and mental agony and Rs. 11,000 towards legal expenses and to pay travel expenses. Snack Bar, the respondent/OP did not contest the case before the District Forum. The District Forum dismissed the complaint.
3. The State Commission, too, dismissed the First Appeal, filed by the complainant, on the following reasons. Firstly, the petitioner/complainant has failed to prove, what is the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the product. Secondly, he had produced two Receipts, Ex. A1, in the sum of Rs. 300 and Ex. A-2, in the sum of Rs. 140. Ex. A-1, was not signed. Ex. A-2, was signed. Again, copy of the legal notice was also not filed.
4. It is also transpired that the complainant filed another CC No. 5/09, before the District Forum, which was accepted and compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,000 was awarded. The complainant has yet again, filed another complaint bearing No. 7/2012, which has got similar facts and is still pending.
5. There is delay of 10 days, in filing the instant revision petition before this Commission, for which, an application for condonation of delay has been filed. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the said delay is hereby condoned.
6. We have heard the Counsel for the parties. The petitioner has placed on record copies of the legal notice which is undated and has been placed as Annexure - P3. Annexure - P4 is the copy of receipt of Speed Post.
7. The petitioner/complainant has also produced before this Commission, the empty can of redbull - energy drink. Its MRP is mentioned as Rs. 75 learned Counsel for the respondent/OP vehemently argued that they are entitled to have this much amount from their customers. He has filed copy of the letter, dated 13.2.2009, written to the DGM (Commercial) Airport Authority of India (IAD), Chennai International Airport, Chennai. At the Second page of the said letter, it is mentioned, as under:
"Aerated Drink
Pepsi Cane MRP
Mineral water MRP
Flavoured Milk/ 40.00
Boost/Horlicks
Imported Juice
(Energy Drink) 140.00"
8. This is a true copy, which is not signed by any person, except its Proprietor, Shri Pradeep Kumar. It does not bear the endorsement of Airport Authority. It does not have sanction of the Airport Authority of India. However, even if it is assumed that the Airport Authority of India has given it's permission, which, otherwise, does not stand proved on the record, we are afraid, they are not empowered to do so. The Airport Authority cannot disturb the MRP rates. There should be some cogent and plausible reason. A person who purchases a redbull energy drink, while standing, is not obliged to pay the fees, which is prescribed for the Restaurant. Restaurants provide service. A Snack Bar, just like a Tea Stall or a Pan/Beedi Stall, hardly provides any service to its customers. It is also noteworthy to mention that the respondent did not contest the case before the District Forum.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards the authority reported in Federation of Hotels & R
