ORDER

This revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) assails the order dated 10.04.2017 of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 268 of 2015 arising from the order dated 04.05.2015 in Consumer Complaint no.CCSR no.72 of 2015 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore (in short, ‘the District Forum’).

2.     Since these six revision petitions have been filed against a common order dated 10.04.2017 passed by the State Commission and raise the same grievances, we propose to decide these by passing a common order taking RP no. 2247 of 2017 as the lead case.

3.     The brief facts of the case, as alleged by the petitioner, are that although the respondent had advertised that they will give 18% discount on MRP Rate for the medicine Benadryl and Zyrtec etc., it only provided 18% discount for one medicine and 5% discount for another medicine.  The petitioner states that on 05.10.2014, the petitioner purchased Benadryl medicine from the respondents shop in P N Pudur shop where a discount of 10% was given on the said medicine. However, the petitioner alleges that when the petitioner purchased the same medicine from the shop in Vadavalli a discount of 18% was given. The petitioner states that since different rates of discount, i.e., 10% and 18% were given for the same medicine in different shops, he sought a clarification from the respondent within 10 days.  The petitioner further states that the respondent in the said two shops at Pudur and Vadavalli had kept adisplay board stating that ‘For all medicines 18% discount will be given on MRP price’. For the medicines Benadryl and Zyrtec purchased on 04.11.2012 they had given a discount of 5% and 18% respectively. It is, therefore, alleged that the respondent committed deficiency in service. As the respondent did not file reply to the clarification sought by the respondent, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint (CCSR no.72 of 2015) before the District Forum which, vide its order dated 04.05.2015,dismissed the complaint stating that the petitioner/ complainant was in the habit of filing cases with commercial motive and waste the precious time of the court. The District Forum also imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- to be deposited with the Consumer Legal Service Authority.

4.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, Chennai. The State Commission also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order of the District Forum. The petitioner has assailed this order by way of above revision petitions.

5.      I have heard Mr S Mahendran, Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr Rangarajan, R, proxy counsel appearing with authority letter for the respondent and have carefully considered the material on record.

6.      The finding of the District Forum is as under:

……………The unfair trade practice is comply only if they sold the medicine with excess amount on MRP rate. Discount on MRP rate is only depends upon the respondent’s willingness and is not compulsory. As like this, the petitioner already filed a case in CC no.15 of 2013 before the Hon’ble Court and the same is dismissed by this Court and the petitioner filed an appeal in FA No . 388 of 2013 before the State Consumer Forum and the same also dismissed by the said forum. Since the petitioner is having the habit of filing more cases like this with commercial motive and waste the precious time of the Court, this Hon’ble Court ordered to pay a fine amount of Rs.1000/- to the Consumer Legal Services Authority within 04.06.2025.

7.      The State Commission in its order dated 12.05.2017 concluded as under:

4.       Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appeal has been preferred and in spite of service of notice, there is no appearance for the respondent/ opposite party. It is well settled that the app