Mumbai, May 2: In a sharp rebuke to what it termed a “dangerous normalization of illegality,” the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has set aside a 2025 order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission South Mumbai, which had dismissed a complaint over non-issuance of a bill for a small liquor purchase.
The case revolved around a seemingly trivial transaction — the purchase of a small quantity of vodka. But the State Commission made it clear that the issue at stake was anything but minor.
Case sent back for fresh hearing
Setting aside the February 12, 2025 order, the State Commission has now remanded the case back to the District Commission for fresh adjudication on merits. It has directed that both parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case.
The complainant, Manish Gaikwad, a resident of Curry Road, had purchased a small quantity of vodka from a Grant Road-based wine shop, the Wine Bank, in 2024.
As per his complaint, he had purchased a 90 ml Romanov Vodka bottle amounting to Rs 80, but alleged that the seller failed to issue a bill or cash memo for the transaction. Hence aggrieved by the same, Gaikwad had approached the commission and filed a complaint.
However, the District Commission dismissed the complaint at the admission stage without issuing notice to the opposite party, observing that non-issuance of bills for small purchases in liquor shops is a common practice due to heavy footfall.
It also noted inconsistencies in the complainant’s version regarding the quantity and price of the product and held that he had failed to establish an unfair trade practice or even his status as a consumer. Aggrieved by this summary rejection, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Commission criticises earlier order
“Such reasoning, if allowed to stand, would have far-reaching and adverse consequences,” the SCDRC observed. It warned that accepting such logic would effectively legitimize illegal practices and embolden sellers to avoid issuing bills altogether.
The appellate body also faulted the District Commission for dismissing the complaint without even issuing notice to the seller or giving the complainant a chance to present evidence.
“It is well settled that consumer complaints should not be rejected at the threshold unless wholly barred by law,” the Commission noted, adding that doubting the complainant’s intent without a hearing amounts to a denial of access to justice.
Also Watch:
The District Commission had earlier questioned whether the complainant qualified as a “consumer,” citing lack of identifiable payment proof and absence of grievance redressal efforts. But the State Commission held that these were matters to be examined during a full hearing — not grounds for outright dismissal.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
