NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Presiding Member and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member
Piyush Priyadarshan Dash – Petitioner
versus
Kanhu Charan Naik – Respondent
Revision Petition No.2512 of 2024 (Against the Order dated 24/05/2024 in Appeal No. A/277/2024 of the State Commission Orissa)
Decided on 9.10.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 39-(K), 41 – Appeal against order of District Commission – Deposit of 50% of amount – Unfair Trade Practice – Not to charge any extra amount other than the MRP as reflected in price list as well as lable of bottles – Complainant alleged that OP used to sell 5000 number of Bira Boom Beer bottle per month which goes to show that through said process, OP had amassed illegal wealth & thereby had caused gross financial loss to the people at large who were consumers at his shop but are unidentifiable now – This Commission directed OP to deposit sum of Rs.20 lacs in State Consumer Welfare Fund – And refund extra amount of Rs.10/- taken from complainant in Birla Boom beer bottle as sole to him & further pay Rs.50,000/- to complainant as compensation towards his mental agony & harassment so also to bear litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.15,000/- – Submissions made by counsel cannot be rejected as being wholly without substance or entirely without a clue & need to be addressed – This aspect of matter though cursorily touched upon by SC has not been thought dealt with & neither detailed arguments were heard in this regard nor same have been addressed or discussed by SC – It is deemed appropriate that he matter may be remanded back for this purpose – SC is requested to provide opportunity to complainant to place its submissions in this regard & decide this issue in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity to both the sides as it may deem fit & pass reasoned Order afresh – Principal onus of informing the respondent of this instant Order shall be of the petitioner – If for whatever reason, respondent does not appear before SC on date of hearing, SC shall issue notice for requiring its presence in order to proceed in accordance with law in matter, as directed by this Commission. (Paras 8, 10, 11 and 14)
Result: Order accordingly.
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed in challenge to the Order dated 24.05.2024 in appeal no.277 of 2024 of the State Commission Orissa.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including inter alia the Orders passed by the Fora below and the memo of petition.
3. It appears that a complaint was made before the District Commission. The complaint was allowed by the District Commission and the following award was made therein which reads as follows:-
The case of the complainant is allowed ex parte against the O.P. The O.P is hereby directed to restrain himself from such unfair trade practice with immediate effect and not to charge any extra amount other than the MRP as reflected in the price list as well as to the label of the bottle. As mentioned by the complainant, the O.P used to sell 5000 number of Bira Boom beer bottle per month which goes to show that in the meanwhile through the said illegal process, the O.P had infact amassed illegal wealth and thereby had caused gross financial loss to the people at large who were consumers at his shop but are unidentifiable now. As per the provisions of Sec-39(K) of the C.P.Act, 2019, this unfair trade practice by the O.P tilts our eye brows for which as prescribed in the aforesaid provision as minimum of 25% of the value is to be levied upon the O.P. Accordingly, this Commission thinks it proper to direct the O.P to deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- in the State Consumer Welfare Fund. The O.P is further directed to refund the extra amount of Rs.10/- taken from the complainant in the Bira Boom beer bottle as sold to him and further to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards his mental agony and harassment so also to bear his litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
4. Thereafter feeling aggrieved by the
Order passed by the District Commission
the appeal was filed before the State Commission. The appeal was admitted and while admitting the appeal the following Order was passed:-
Learned counsel for the appellant deposited statutory amount of Rs.32,505/- as per the office note in shape of Demand Draft bearing Nos.608940 dated 23.5.2024 and No.608951 dated 24.5.2024.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the amount deposited by the appellant towards statutory amount is not 50% of the awarded amount as such direction be given to the appellant to deposit 50% of the awarded amount towards statutory amount.
As per Section 41 of C.P.Act, 2019 the appellant is required to deposit 50% of the awarded amount to be paid to the complainant. In the present appeal the appellant has deposited the same as per the office note same is accepted. The same be deposited in any nationalized Bank in a fixed deposit account for three months with automatic renewal facility till further orders.
Heard.
Admit.
Call for the DFR in the meantime.
Learned counsel for both the parties are directed to file written note of submission by the next date.
List the matter on 07.06.2024 awaiting the DFR and for orders.
5. The present petition has been filed against the afore-said Order passed by State Commission at the stage of admission.
6. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record including inter alia the Orders passed by the fora below.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, specifically to sub-para 3 of the Section which is the second proviso of Section 41. The same may be quoted hereinbelow:-
41. Appeal against order of District Commission:- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five days from the date of the order, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed:
Provided ....
Provided further that n
(1) It is a pre-condition to deposit 50 per cent of amount as ordered by State Commission before appeal is entertained by National Commission – However, that does not take away jurisdiction of Nation....
Liability for non-refund of deposits – A financial institution or entity cannot escape liability for non-refund of deposits by merely denying the transaction or the relationship in its pleadings. Whe....
Condonation of delay by imposition of costs justified.
Revisional Jurisdiction – Concurrent decisions of District Forum & State Commission cannot be set aside by this National Commission as it cannot go into re-appreciation of evidence.
Review Power under Section 50 – The State Commission possesses the statutory authority to review its own orders if there is an “error apparent on the face of the record.” This power can be exercised ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.