Kamla Devi vs UPHAR MEDICAL BANIPARK JAIPUR

THESE three appeals between the same parties involving the same common facts were heard togather. THESE are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order.

SMT. Kamla Devi alias SMT. Chalti Devi, the complainant-appellant in all the three appeals, is an old lady of more than 60 years of age and suffering from heart desease. Her doctor had prescribed "Nippy" tablets for her said ailment. She purchased such tablets on 24.2.2001, 1.3.2001 and 11.3.2001 from the respondent opposite party and every time the respondent charged a price of Rs. 20.50 for strips of ten tablets each from her against the printed maximum retail price including sales taxes at Rs. 14.20 of each strip. When she objected against such unfair trade practice of the respondent, he rudely refused to sell the tablets to her but since she could not get such tablets conveniently from other sellers of medicines she was compelled to purchase the tablets from the respondent at higher price. She, therefore, filed three complaints, being Nos. 785, 786 and 787/2002. In the replies filed by him the respondent did not dispute the factual position that he had charged Rs. 4.74 for each of the three strips of nippy tablets over and above the actual price thereof at Rs. 14.20+11% = 15.76 for each strips, but contended that it was due to slip of pen that extra price of the tablets was written in the cash memos and charged from the appellant accordingly. He tried to explain that rush of customers at the relevant time and keeping the strips of Nippy tablets in the old box of keeping such tablets whereupon the price of such tablets was mentioned as Rs. 20.50 per strip of 10 tablets, had contributed to the charge of extra amount by him from the appellant. At the same time he blamed the appellant for her not bringing the fact of charging incorrect or excess price from her to his notice and knowledge and alleged lack of moral courage on her part in that behalf.

The Distt. Forum accepted the version of the case as given by the appellant in her complaints and directed the respondent to refund a sum of Rs. 4.74 and pay cost of litigation at Rs. 100/- to the appellant in each complaint.

AGGRIEVED by such orders of the Distt. Forum of the even date i.e., 16.4.2002 the appellant has filed these appeals. The respondent has not challenged the impugned order by way of filing cross-appeal or appeals in any of the three cases.

WE heard the parties and critically examined the material available on the record of the case. WE find substance in appellant''s pray for enhancement of compensation. It could not be disputed before us that the respondent could have at the maximum, charged Rs. 14.20 + 11% tax = Rs. 15.76 only for each of the strips of 10 tablets of "Nippy" medicine but he did charge a sum of Rs. 20.50 for each strip from the appellant. His repeated acts of charging price of goods over and above the price declared on the strips were indicative of such a trade practice, being adopted by him in carrying on his business of selling medicines to the needy customers, which practice tended to impose on the consumers unjustified cost of the said medicine. The practice adopted by him for selling his goods, therefore, clearly amounted to "restrictive trade practice" as defined in Section 2(1)(nnn), which runs as under: 2[(nnn) "restrictive trade practice" means a trade practice which tends to bring about manipulation of price or its conditions of delivery or to affect flow of supplies in the market relating to goods or services in such a manner as to impose on the consumers unjustified costs or restrictions and shall include- (a) delay beyond the period agreed to by a trader in supply of such goods or in providing the services which has led or is likely to lead to rise in the price; (b) any trade practice which requires a consumer to buy, hire or avail of any goods or, as the case may be, services as condition precedent to buying, hiring or availing of other goods or services;]

The explanation of the respondent, as pointed out above, did not inspire any confidence and has been rightly rejected by the Distt. Forum. The very fact that the respondent had sold the same medicine to the appellant at three different occasions and each time he had mentioned the same batch number of the medicines sold, which number was printed on the strips just close to the price printed thereon and though the respondent had correctly reproduced the batch number in all the three cash memos but mentioned the price differently from that printed on the strip, shows a conscious and deliberate efforts and acts on the part of the respondent to charge extra price of the tablets from the appellant, obviously for unjust enrichment. Such condemnable efforts and nefarious activities adopted by a trader of life saving drugs and medicines are required to be not only viewed at very seriously by the authorities concerned but are also required to be learned order dealt with by an iron to curb the increasing tendency of in justly enriching himself at the cost of the health and life to sick and deceased fellow beings.

IN view of the above the impugned orders in all the three appeals are modified to the effect that we award to the appellant compensation of Rs. 500/- and cost at Rs. 500/- in each of the appeals, as claimed by her through her husband before us. This is in addition to the relief given to her by the DF in each case. Consequently all the appeals are partly allowed.

A copy of this order shall be sent to the Secretary Medical and Health Deptt, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur as also to the Drug Inspector concerned. A copy of this order shall also be forwarded to the PRO to give wide publicity in print and audio visual media. Appeals partly allowed.