Complaint No. 381/18.5.2009.

Date of order: 13.11.2009.
1. Prashant Swaroop Sharma, Duty Officer, PVR Group, Flamez Mall, 755, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab.

2. Vijay Kumar, E.S.P. PVR Group, Flamez Mall, 755, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab.

(Complainants)
Vs.

1. Reliance Super, Reliance Hyper Mart, Flamez mall, 755, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab.



2. Jitender, Manager, Reliance Super, Reliance Hyper Mart, Flamez Mall, 755, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab.

(Opposite parties)

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. ------------------------------------------------------------

Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.

Smt. Priti Malhotra, Member

Present:

Sh. B.S. Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Dalip Garg Advocate for opposite parties.

O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. In this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, case of the complainants is that they purchased a milk pouch of 500ml being product no.8902989000014 for Rs.12.50p from opposite parties vide bill no. 03402040810 dated 3.3.2009. This milk got spoiled immediately and when minutely examined the pouch, they found the same of expiry date. Milk was packed on 28.2.2009 and was sold to the complainants on 3.3.2009. Though, it was required to be used within two days from the date of packing. Therefore, the opposite parities resorted to unfair trade practice by selling expired date milk to them, which got spoiled.

2. Opposite parties contested the complaint denying any negligence on their part or resorting to unfair trade practice by selling the milk after date of its expiry. Pleaded that they have been selling the milk all over the country and never received any complaint. Milk is a perishable item which has to be immediately refrigerated when brought to home and if the same is kept outside the refrigerator even for 2/3 hours, it will be spoiled. Milk bar code number through out the country remains the same. They denied that they have sold the milk packed on 28.2.2009 to the complainants on 3.3.2009.

3. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective contentions.

4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

5. The question is whether the milk pouch packed on 28.2.2009 after expiry date was sold by the opposite parties to the complainants on 3.3.2009. No doubt, complainants have brought on record invoice Ex.C.1, under which purchased the milk pouch. Ex.C.2 is photocopy of the wrapper of the milk pouch. But this pouch contains product number. This product number according to the opposite parties remains the same through out the country, in all times. But the pouch had no batch number. Therefore, there is nothing on the record that actually the milk pouch in question was purchased under invoice Ex.C.1 dated 3.3.2009 by the complainant. Rightly contended by the opposite party that product number of the milk pouch through out the year and whole of the country remains the same. Anybody can file the pouch of back date alleging the sale of the same after expiry date by the opposite party. There appears some merit in the contention of the opposite party. Because, no batch number is mentioned in the pouch. Had it been so, then we could have considered that particular milk pouch bearing such and such batch number and barcode number was sold by the opposite parties to the complainants after its expiry date. Therefore, there is no proof that opposite party resorted to unfair trade practice by selling the milk pouch of expired date to the complainants.

6. Hence, finding no merit, the complaint is dismissed. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be made available to the parities free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.