Back
1 Appeal No.721 of 2021
Date of Filing :21.09.2021
Date of Disposal :23.09.2021
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER-2021
PRESENT
HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MrsM.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO.721 of 2021
The Manager,
Royal Meenakshi
Mall Bannerughatta
Road, Hulimavu,
Arakere, Bommanahalli
Range, Bengaluru-560 076.
Rep/by V.Roshan
… Appellant
(By Sri/Smt.Keerthi Hegde, Advocate)
-Versus-
Om Hegde Uratota,
# 439, 4th Main Road,
Nagendra Block,
Shrinagar,
Bengaluru-560 050.
..Respondent
ORDER
HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
1. This is an Appeal filed by the Appellant/OP, aggrieved by
the order passed by Bangalore Urban III Addl. District
2 Appeal No.721 of 2021
Consumer
Disputes
Redressal
Forum,
Bengaluru
in
CC-2513/2017
on
16.01.2020
(for
short
District
Forum/Commission and parties arrayed in the consumer
complaint).
2.
The Brief facts are: It is alleged by the complainant that,
he had purchased half a litre of Kinley Company’s drinking
water from OP, for which OP has collected Rs.40/- though for
one litre water the MRP is Rs.20/-, hence, there is deficiency
and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite party. After
issuance of notice, OP appeared through counsel and contended
that, it has obtained various permissions to operate and run
multiplexes from Government of India and also other statutory
authorities under the applicable laws. It is contended that, the
price of Kinley 500 ML and 1 litre bottle is sold at Rs.40/- and
50/- respectively. After hearing both sides, District Forum
recorded findings in favour of complainant and directed OPs to
refund a sum of Rs.20/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a from
07.06.2017 till actual payment and do pay Rs.5,000/-
compensation towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards
litigation expenses. It is this case, which is now before us in
3 Appeal No.721 of 2021
this appeal on the ground that the impugned order is illegal,
erroneous, opposed to the applicable law and facts.
3. Issuance of appeal notice to the Respondent/complainant
is dispensed with to avoid further delay.
4. Commission heard and perused the impugned order
passed by District Commission in CC-2513/2017, dated
16.01.2020 and perused the records. Now to examine whether
impugned order passed by the Commission below could be
maintained or is liable to be set aside?
5. We found from the impugned order that, there is no
dispute between the parties regarding purchase of half a litre of
Kinley Water Bottle by the complainant from the OP. It is the
specific case of the complainant that, the OP has collected
Rs.40/- for half a litre of Kinley Company’s Water Bottle though
the MRP for one litre of same company’s water bottle having
Rs.20, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade
practice. On the other hand, the OP contended before the
District Forum by filing its version and before this Commission
in the appeal memo that, the packaged commodities being sold
at the premises of the company denotes the manufacturer
4 Appeal No.721 of 2021
prints, MRP declaration along with all other declarations
required to be printed as per the applicable laws that are to be
complies with by the manufacturer and the packer, before
supply of such product to the appellant. In this regar
