Tarak Halder and Another Vs. the Manager, Bata India Ltd and Another

S. Coari, Member.

1. The present appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dated 23.05.2012 passed by the D.C.D.R.F., Kolkata, Unit – II in Case No. CDF/Unit-II/C.C. No. 1424 of 2009 wherein the Ld. District Forum dismissed the petition of complaint on contest but without any order as to cost.

2. The case of the Appellant – Complainant before the Ld. District Forum in brief, was that, the Complainant purchased a pair of shoes from O.P. – Respondents showroom on 28.02.2008 for a sum of Rs.799/- and obtained a money receipt thereof. According to the Complainant after returning home Complainant noticed that the maximum retail price was printed in the shoe as Rs.749/-. The Complainant protested in writing as regards taking excess amount of money from the Complainant from what was printed in the shoe as MRP. As the O.Ps did not respond to such written protest by the Complainant, the Complainant instituted the consumer complaint on the ground of unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps – shoe company.

3. The O.Ps contested the case by filing Written Version denying and disputing all the material averments made in the petition of complaint contending inter alia, that no excess amount was realized from the Complainant, in as much as, there was increase of price of different article used for manufacturing shoes and on the basis of a written circular dated 28.12.2007 the revision of MRP was effected which was applicable to all the retail outlets of Bata Shoe Company. The increase of price from the MRP printed on the shoe is effected by printing a sticker in each and every commodity incorporating price increase therein. According to the O.Ps in absence of deficiency in service at the instance of the O.Ps, the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.

4. The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that the increase in price was effected by the O.Ps – shoe company on the basis of a valid circular and as such, such increase cannot be adjudged to be any short of deficiency in service and that the Complainant being already explained in this regard, question of designating the O.Ps to be deficient in service as claimed by the Complainant does not arise at all and accordingly dismissed the case as mentioned above.

5. The only moot question that revolves round is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified in dismissing the consumer complaint in the manner as discussed above.

6. Case laws referred on behalf of the Appellant : (1) Revision Petition No. 53 of 2006 (NC) Circuit Bench at Bangalore – Reliance India Mobile Ltd. – vs. – Hari Chand Gupta, (2) III (2007) CPJ 305 (NC) – Cargo Tarpaulin Industries – vs. – Mallikarjun B. Kori, (3) Revision Petition No. 1051 of 1999 (NC) – H. U. D. A. – vs. – Smt. Kamaljit Kaur Ahluwalia and Ors., (4) I (1996) CPJ 224 (NC) – Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. – vs. – Ajit Singh Parihar and Ors. And (5) II (2007) CPJ 96 – Zaika Bazar – vs. – Hemant Goel.

DECISION WITH REASONS :

7. It is submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents that the Ld. District Forum has really appreciated the pros and cons of respective parties cases and in arriving at a just and proper decision has practically left no stone unturned. 8. According to Ld. Advocate when at the time of purchase the Complainant was duly explained about the increase in price in shoe from what was printed as MRP on the shoe itself by the salesman of the shoe company it was not just and proper on the part of the Complainant – Appellant to raise any dispute on a flimsy ground that the O.P. – Respondents, shoe company has charged more than what was printed on the shoe itself as maximum retail price. While elaborating on this point being satisfied about the explanation meted out by the salesman of the shoe company, the Complainant paid the amount and as a second thought has raised the non-existing dispute which is not at all tenable under the law. While supporting the impugned judgement the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents has submitted before us that the Ld. District Forum has assessed the materials on record in the right perspective and has arrived at a decision which is very much sustainable under the law. While concluding his submission the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted before us that the impugned judgement being a very well written and judicious, there is no scope to interfere with the same and on this score alone the impugned judgement should be confirmed.

8. We have duly considered the submission so put forward on behalf of the Respondent and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned judgement and find in this case the Complainant – Appellant put forward a case to the effect that after purchase of the shoe from the O.Ps – shoe company it came to the notice of the Complainant that though the MRP has been printed as Rs.749/- in the shoe itself but for reasons best known to the O.Ps – shoe company a sum of Rs.799/- has been charged from the Complainant towards price of the shoe. According to the Complainant, such acts on the part of the O.Ps – shoe company tantamounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and hence, the petition of complaint. The shoe company, on the other hand, has come forward with a case to the effect that as there was increase in price in the manufacturing materials there was increase in price of the shoe which has been effected by a notification after observing all the formalities and the Complainant being aware and informed about such increase in prince there was practically no scope on the part of the Complainant to raise the issue on flimsy and false and fictitious grounds and accordingly, the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.

9. We have carefully gone through the impugned judgement and find that the Ld. District Forum has given much stressed on the reputation and goodwill of the O.Ps – shoe company and has taken it granted that there was no deficiency in service at the instance of the O.Ps – shoe company in the manner in which the excess amount was charged from the Complainant. On perusal of the decision relied upon by the Complainant – Appellant we find that in decision reported I (1996) CPJ 224 (NC) that Honble National Commission has held that “Sub-rule 4 or Sub-rule 23 shall be substituted by another Sub-rule which will do away with the practice of fixing price stickers on the package at any level of trade and make it obligatory on the part of the manufacturers to issue press and advertisement in case of any increase/decrease in price due to revision of taxes”. Keeping in mind this proposition we find that there is no material before this Commission for a presumption that at the time of purchase the Complainant was informed/aware about the existence of such circular as claimed by the O.Ps – shoe company as regards increase of price by affixing a sticker on the shoe itself. This proposition finds much support from the answer given by the Complainant to the questionnaire put forward on behalf of the O.Ps wherein the Complainant has positively stated that there was no sticker at all with the price tag of Rs.749/- on any other value. MRP of Rs.749/- was embossed/printed inside the shoe. If that be the position the plea taken by the Respondents – shoe company has got no basis at all and legal presumption should go against the O.P. – Respondents, shoe company. The Respondents have tried to make up this aspect of the case by producing the relevant circular, but on careful scrutiny of the same we find that it was communication between the administrator and the manager of the shoe company and none else. On this count also the plea of informing the public in general and/or matter was explained by the salesman to the Complainant as raised by the O.Ps – shoe company does not hold any water at all.

10. Having considered the present appeal in the light of above discussion we find that there is much merit in the present appeal and in our opinion should be allowed. Since, admittedly the Respondents – shoe company is a reputed shoe company and as from the materials on record it has become evident that the stand point adopted by the Respondents – O.Ps is not accepted and that the manner in which the excess amount was realized from the Complainant – Appellant certainly tantamount to unfair trade practice and considering all these factors the O.Ps –shoe company can be safely designated to be deficient in service as claimed by the Complainant. In this regard we are of considered opinion that ends of justice will be met if the Complainant be awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and be awarded a litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. In the result the appeal succeeds.

11. Hence, ordered that the appeal stands allowed on contest with cost. The O.Ps – shoe company be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) by way of compensation to the Complainant and pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) also to the Complainant, failing which interest @ 9% per annum will be charged on the amount till realization. Consequently, the petition of complaint stands allowed in the manner as discussed above.