O R D E R

% 05.08.2024

1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing of the order dated 04.03.2014 passed in revision petition bearing no. 4090/2012 and the order dated 23.04.2014 passed in review petition bearing no. 70/2014 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi/(NCDRC).

2. The respondent, Mr. D. K. Chopra filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 wherein, it is mentioned that the petitioner has sold Red Bull (Energy Drink) more than the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) twice on the same day and at a different price to the respondent. The respondent also annexed the bills dated 16.11.2009 and

01.11.2009.

3. The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu vide order dated 18.01.2011 dismissed the complaint by observing that the respondent has failed to prove the deficiency in the service or unfair trade practice relating to the sale of Red Bull (Energy Drink) in question through clinching evidence. It was further observed that the respondent was not entitled to claim any relief. The respondent being aggrieved by the order dated 18.01.2011 filed an appeal bearing FA no. 118/2011 titled as D K Chopra V Snack Bar before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai which was order to be dismissed vide order dated

10.04.2012 wherein it was observed as:- 4. First it is pertinent to note that the appellant/complainant has not adduced any evidence to establish the MRP (Maximum Retail Price) of the product and there is no evidence on record to ascertain the MRP of the product in question. No materials are placed before us to ascertain the MRP and to substantiate that it was sold for a price over and above the MRP and therefore, without ascertaining the MRP, we cannot decide whether it was sold for a higher price.

5. Further, according to the complainant, the product was sold at Rs.300/- for two cans at the rate of Rs,150/- per can and another can was sold for Rs.140/-on the same day, and the receipt isEx.A1 where we find that Ex.A1 is dated 16-11-2009 for Rs. 300/- for two cans, without any signature / initial of the Cashier; and Ex.A2 is another receipt dated 1-11-2009 for Rs. 140/- for one can, with theinitial of the Cashier and it shows that the products were not purchased on the same day as alleged by the complainant.

6. Further it is relevant to note that according to the complainant, he sent legal notice to the opposite party dated 20-12-2009 i.e. after more than one month of purchasing the product; but copy of the legal notice said to have been sent by the complainant is not filed before the Forum for reasons not known to us; and we have to draw adverse inference in this regard.

7. Further, we have to note that the complainant himself has stated in the Memorandum of Appeal that in an earlier case CC No.5/2008, the District forum accepted thatthe opposite party charged Rs.65/- extra and ordered refund of the excess amount and awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- and we have to note that in the instant complaint, the complainant has prayed for refund of the excess amount and for award of full compensation amount demanded by him i.e. refund of the excess amount of Rs.215/- charged by the opposite party and award of compensation of Rs.2 Lac.

8. It is further significant to note, that according to the opposite party for the same cause of action, the complainant had filed CC 5/2009 before the District Forum claiming refund of Rs.65/- as excess amount and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as legal expenses and to pay travel expenses and the present complaint has been filed praying for direction to the opposite party to refund the excess amount of Rs.65/-and to pay compensation of Rs.2 Lac. It is also stated by the opposite party that another complaint in CC. 7/2012 has been filed by the complainant before the District Forum and the same is pending. So, it is clear that the complain