EASY DAY, C/O- FUTURE RETAIL LIMITED & ANR. vs UMESH KUMAR GHAI S/O. MOHAN CHAND

Challenge in this Revision Petition by an FMCG Retail Chain, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint, is to the order dated 19.09.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 399 of 2016. By the impugned order, while affirming the finding returned by the District Forum to the effect that the Petitioners herein had indulged in unfair trade practice in overcharging the product in question, viz., a chopping board, and partly allowing the Appeal, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant against the order dated 21.04.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Patiala (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. CC/15/210, the State Commission has enhanced the punitive damages, awarded by the District Forum, from 15,000/- to 1,00,000/-.

It is worth noting at this stage itself that the Petitioners herein had not questioned the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum by carrying the matter further in Appeal before the State Commission. Thus, the afore-noted finding by the District Forum, attained finality insofar as the Petitioners are concerned.

Mr. Makkar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Petitioners, submits that the main reason for challenging the order passed by the State Commission before this Commission is the generalised observations made by the Fora below, on unfounded and baseless stray instances, which tend to project the entire business activity by the Petitioners in poor light. He submits that the Petitioners would be satisfied if the observations in relation to the conduct of the business by the Petitioners, made in the impugned order, are expunged, as the Petitioners do not propose to contest the directions regarding payment/deposit of the amounts indicated therein.

Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners as also the Complainant, who appears in person, we are of the view that although certain issues raised in the Complaint are of public importance and would require deeper scrutiny, yet, having regard to the limited prayer made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, we dispose of the Revision Petition, with a direction that the observations, particularly in para-8 of the order, impugned in this Petition, shall not be construed as affirmation of the observations by the Fora below relating to the conduct of the business by the Petitioners. Further, the impugned order shall not be treated as a precedent in other cases.

Save and except the aforesaid clarification, all other directions in the order impugned in the Revision Petition are maintained. The Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly, with a direction that the Complainant shall be entitled to costs in these proceedings, quantified at 5,000/-, in addition to the amount directed to be paid to him by the Fora below. The total amount due to the Complainant shall be remitted by the Petitioners directly to him by means of a bank draft within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The requisite deposit in the Consumer Welfare Fund, as directed, shall also be made within the same time.