1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 09.10.2020 he purchased one Gladius RUM from O.P. No.1 for Rs. 700/-and after returning to him he found the MRP was of Rs. 585/-.  The allegation of complainant is that being taken excess amount of Rs. 115/-, he asked the counter boy for the reasons, but the counter boy rudely replied stating that as per instruction of O.P. No.2 they are taking excess price and suggested to contact with O.P. No.2 and on asking for tax invoice and refund of excess price of Rs. 115/-, the counter boy of O.P. No.1 neither refund the amount nor issued the invoice, thus with other allegations, showing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.P. to refund the excess price of Rs. 115/- and to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation.

2. O.P. No. 1 appeared through their Ld. Counsel, filed their counter version denying the allegations of complainant have contended that he is not having any shop in the name and style of Maa Bhairabi Agency and notice served to G. Goutam Kumar, Prop. Of GGK IMFL OFF Shop situated in the canal road, Malkangiri. They have also contended that in the Malkangiri Municipality many liquor shops by different owners are situated and also selling the different types of liquor including Gradius Rum and he has not sold the alleged product to the complainant and with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case.

3. O.P. No. 2 appeared in the case and filed their counter versions denying the allegations of complainant have contended that they are holding the license for wholesale vend of foreign liquor under provision of Odisha Excise Act, 2008 and supply to the Orissa Beverage Corporation Limited (in short OBCL), Bhubaneswar and their wholesale depo.  Further contended that they have no knowledge about the transaction made between the complainant and the O.P. No. 1 and it is the OBCL who is to fix the MRP of the product of all brands of the bottles on the packet, and with other contentions they prayed to dismiss the case.
    
4. Since no invoice was issued, complainant could not filed any document but has filed only the alleged product, whereas the O.P. No. 2 two number of documents being issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Sambalpur in support of their contentions.  Perused the case record and materials available therein including the alleged product.  

5. From the documents filed by the complainant, it is ascertained that the alleged product is blended and bottled by the O.P. No. 2 and the MRP is Rs. 585/- as mentioned therein.  The allegations of complainant is that the MRP of alleged  product is of Rs. 585/- but the O.P. No. 1 has sold it on Rs.700/-, whereas the O.P. No. 1 totally denied the allegations stating that they have not having any shop in the name of Maa Bhairavi agency and also they have not sold the alleged product to the complainant as there are many other sellers in the locality who are selling such type of product.    Since no documentary evidence produced by the complainant to prove his allegation regarding that he has purchased the alleged product from the O.P. No. 1, so also the complainant never challenged the counter version of O.P. No. 1 and no contradiction is made out and without any evidence, the liability cannot confer upon the O.P. No. 1 and the allegations against O.P. No. 1 cannot sustain.  In this connection, we have fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission, in the case between Anuj Agarwal Vrs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. wherein it is held that “There is no illegality or jurisdictional error where an order is passed on written version and document of Op unchallenged by the complainant.”
   
   During hearing complainant submitted that besides excess price taken from him, the alleged product contain some dust particles inside in it, which is bottled and packaged by the O.P. No. 2.For better perusal, we examined the alleged bottle and found that some dust particles are floated inside the bottle which is clearly visible in the naked eye and the alleged product is purely sealed one and the said fact cannot be disbelievable.On the other hand, the O.P. No. 2 though denied the allegations of complainant regarding excess price taken by the O.P. No. 1 stating that the said fact is not their knowledge, but have not uttered any single word regarding floating of dust particle inside the bottle, which is bottled and supplied by them to the OBCL and to their wholesale depo. On our view, though the MRP may be fixed by the OBCL (as per counter version of O.P. No.2), but it cannot be denied that the alleged product is bottled by them and it is the prime duty of the O.P. No. 2 to have a look over the products prior to despatch to the market for its sale. And in the instant case, the O.P. No. 2 was ought to have check the alleged product through their quality department before dispatch to the market, but without do so, they simply packed and bottled the alleged product and supplied the same to the market, which is clear case of deficiency in service.

6. Further it is ascertained from the submissions of complainant, though he has not consumed the alleged product and does not sustained any physical injury, but has suffered from some sort of mental agony and financial loss, hence the allegation made against the O.P. No.2 is well proved.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                  ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No.2 is herewith directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation towards causing mental agony and selling of impurified product and to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of sale i.e. 09.10.2020 till payment.

        Since no allegations against the O.P. No.1 is proved, no order against him.

        Pronounced in the open Court on this the 16^th day of June, 2021.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.