Consumers Must Verify Prices Before Purchasing Items, Delhi State Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Essex Farms For Charging Above MRP
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms Pinki (Judicial Member) dismissed a complaint against Essex Farms Private Limited for allegations of charging above the MRP of packaged food items. It was held that not only did the Complainant fail to substantiate his claim through evidence, but also failed to verify the prices before purchasing the concerned items.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant visited a food outlet owned by Essex Farms Private Limited (“Essex Farms”) to buy a Diet Coke and a packet of chips. At the store, he was asked to pay Rs. 40/- for the Diet Coke and Rs. 20 for the Lays chips. However, the MRP of these items were Rs. 25/- and Rs. 15/- respectively. The Complainant raised objections to the extra charges and requested the staff to sell the items at MRP. However, the request was denied. Allegedly, the staff also engaged in an argument with the Complainant and declined to issue a cash memo for the transaction. The Complainant ended up paying a higher price. Feeling aggrieved, he filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, New Delhi (“District Commission”).
The District Commission held that the Complainant's claims remained unsubstantiated as other cash memos issued by Essex Farms on the same day for other customers showed Rs. 25 as the charged amount for Diet Coke. Further, the audio recording submitted as evidence by the Complainant lacked authenticity. The Complainant also failed to raise a grievance with the management of Essex Farms. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed.
Dissatisfied by the decision of the District Commission, the Complainant filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (“State Commission”).
Contentions of the Complainant/Appellant:
The Complainant argued that the District Commission had misinterpreted evidence, especially their video recordings. He also maintained that Essex Farms charged for the items above the MRP, which was evidenced by a recorded video showing an admission by the Essex Farms staff. Additionally, he argued that the District Commission overlooked consistent overpricing practices by Essex Farms.
Observations of the State Commission:
The State Commission observed that the main issue was whether the District Commission erred in evaluating the Complainant's evidence which included both audio and video recordings and whether Essex Farms' practice of charging above the MRP constituted a service deficiency. Upon examination, the State Commission found that the Complainant's recordings lacked authentication and did not sufficiently prove a consumer rights violation. The State Commission noted that although the Complainant alleged overpricing, the evidence did not substantiate a systematic pattern specific to the Complainant's purchase. Comparison with prices paid by other customers did not conclusively establish systemic overpricing.
Further, the State Commission held that the Complainant failed to meet the legal burden of proving a deficiency in service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It observed that the Complainant himself had a responsibility to verify prices before purchase. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the order of the District Commission was upheld.
Case Title: Ronen Chatterjee vs Essex Farms Private Limited
Case No.: First Appeal No. 141/2017
Advocate for the Appellant: Dr. S. Kumar
Advocate for the Opposite Party (Essex Farms): Ajay Verma & Associates
Date of Pronouncement: 06.11.2024