Consumer Complaint No: 419/2007

Date of presentation: 05.12.2007

Date of decision: 25.11.2009

Shri Naveen Puri, S/o Sh. Balram Kumar

R/o Range View Lower Kaithu, Shimla.

… Complainant.
Versus

1. Managing Director,

Valley Agro Foods Pvt. Limited,

11-12 Industrial Area Sultanpur Chamba H.P.



2. Sh. Bhagat Ram Sharma,

Proprietor Sharma General Store,

New Totu, Shimla, H.P.

…Opposite Parties.
For the complainant: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate.


For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Virender Chauhan, Advocate.
O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that, on, 12.11.2007, he purchased, a, bottle of Vale’s Pineapple from the OP No.2, for his own consumption. It is averred that, when he took out the said bottle, he was surprised to saw a piece of glass floating inside the bottle. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OP No.1, in its written version, to the complaint, contended that the drink bottle was not properly handled by the complainant during transaction or carrying the same and due to which internal corner of the cork/lid might have been broken and the same cannot be attributed to be the negligence of the OP. It is further contended that the OP has installed latest machinery for processing the juice and all the juices are processed or filtered very minutely at different places in the plant during manufacturing process of the same, hence, the question of falling/floating of piece of glass in the bottle, at the time of its manufacturing, cannot arise. They further contend that the OP No.1 is dealing in the business of processing of juices for last 20-25 years and has not received any complaint, from any of the dealer or the consumer, as the case may be. It is denied that the OP No.2, is their authorized dealer. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice. The OP No.2, did not contest the complaint.

3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The complainant before us, is, having a grievance that the product styled as ‘Valley’s Pineapple’ purchased by him from the OP No.2, manufactured by OP No.1, had a foreign article, inasmuch, as, it was having a glass piece, hence, rendering it unfit, for, human consumption.

6. The complainant avers that, he, purchased the aforesaid bottle of Pineapple from the OP No.2, on 12.11.2007, which fact has not been contested by the OP No.2, hence, has to be accorded sanctity. Though, the OP No.1, in its reply has contended, that, without seeing the product, it cannot be said that the product belongs, to, them and hence, that the OP No.2, is, not their dealer. However, from, a perusal of zimni order dated 13.03.2008, rendered, by this Forum, it is, divulged, that, the Pineapple drink bottle, manufactured in July, 2007 bearing batch No.10, has been manufactured by Valley Agro Foods, 11-12, Industrial Area, Sultanpur, Chamba, H.P., who has been impleaded as, OP No.1, hence, the plea of the OP No.1, that, the product has not been manufactured by them, is, falsified and it, is, to be construed that, the product so purchased by the complainant from the OP No.2, was manufactured by the OP No.1.

7. The bottle of Pineapple, so purchased by the complainant from the OP No.2, on, 12.11.2007, was produced before this Forum on 13.03.2008, as is evident from a perusal of zimni order rendered by this Forum on, 13.03.2008, and it was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat whose report dated 12.06.2008, details, the, fact, that, the product of Pine apple drink, is, not fit for human consumption owing, to, the presence of objectionable suspended foreign matter and a glass piece. Even, if, some delay has occurred from the date of its purchase, till, its production and transmission to CTL Kandaghat for its report, yet, the fact, as, detailed in the report of CTL Kandaghat which has remained un-controverted, of, it being in a sealed condition, hence, deterring the introduction of a foreign substance in it, during the period it remained with the complainant, as has been contended by the OP No.1, in its reply, ousts, the, possible inference arising from delay, of, the, objectionable suspended foreign matter and a glass piece, having been introduced in it subsequent, to, its purchase. Besides, for want of its having been controverted, it, attains conclusiveness and, is, to be accorded sanctity. Therefore, it is, to be construed, that, the OP No.2, by selling a defective product, having been manufactured by the OP No.1, which was not fit for human consumption, has not only committed deficiency in service, but, has also indulged in an unfair trade practice.

8. The complainant, has, claimed a sum of Rs.80,000/-, from the OPs, on account of selling defective product, yet, has not been able to prove that, he, is entitled to claim such an exorbitant amount of compensation from the OPs, on account of selling the defective product to him. Hence, we are not inclined to award such an excessive and exaggerated amount of compensation in favour of the complainant. Since, the product, so manufactured by the OP No.1, has been proved to be unfit for human consumption, due to presence of objectionable suspended foreign matter and a glass piece, hence, the OP No.1, being the manufacturer, cannot exculpate, its liability to pay reasonable damages to the complainant.

9. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and the OP No.1, is, directed to pay damages to the complainant, which in the fact and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the bottle of Pineapple was having objectionable suspended foreign matter and a glass piece, hence, rendering it, unfit for human consumption, was sold to the complainant, by the OP No.2, is, quantified at Rs.5,000/-, besides litigation cost of Rs.2000/-. The amount of damages and cost of litigation, so ordered above, shall be defrayed to the complainant by the OP No.1, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order.

10. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.