This is a discussion on Super Market within the Food And Drink forums, part of the Tour and Travels category; Consumer Complaint No: 21/2008 Date of presentation: 22.02.2008 Date of decision: 08/01/2010 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Sh. Ravi Kumar, C/o M/s Paradise Wine Shop, ...
Consumer Complaint No: 21/2008
Date of presentation: 22.02.2008
Date of decision: 08/01/2010
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Sh. Ravi Kumar, C/o M/s Paradise Wine Shop,
Near Shiv Mandir, Kumarhatti, Solan Bye Pass Rabon,
Tehsil and District Solan H.P.
… Complainant Versus
1. M/s Super Market, Prashar Complex, First Floor, Rajgarh Road, Near D.C. Office, Solan, Through its sole proprietor and Authorized Signatory.
2. M/s EMCU Agro Products Private Limited, Village Mohra, Ambala, Haryana-133001.
For the complainant: Mr. H.D. Dhooli, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No. 1: Mr. Navesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant 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, 26.11.2007, he purchased a Mango fruity of two liters, from the OP No.1, for a consideration of Rs.124/-. It is averred that, when he reached at, home and was about to serve the same to his family members, as well, as to his guests, he noticed that, there were suspension of foreign particles, i.e. filth dirt and other floating elements. It is averred that, on watching the same, none of the family members, as well, as, the guests had agreed to consume the mango fruity and refuse to take the same. The complainant further proceeded to aver that, the product so sold by the OP No.1, is, being manufactured by the OP No.2, and if the complainant had consumed the said product, then it would have been injurious to his life and health. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs 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, he had been purchasing the soft drink, i.e. Mango Fruity, from M/S Gupta Sales Corporation, The Mall, Road, Solan, H.P. and had been selling the same to the public at large, in the same condition, in which it was sold/delivered to him, by the dealer. The OP No.2, in its separate reply, has contended that, the complainant has not consumed the contents of the bottle, hence, has not suffered any injury. It is contended that, when the bottle was purchased by the complainant, on, 26.11.2007, why he did not saw the suspension of foreign particles there, hence, it appears that the instant complaint has been filed with the intention to procure illegal gains by making false accusations. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.
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 ‘Mango Fruity’ purchased by him from the OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.2, had foreign articles, i.e. a dead spider, in it, rendering it unfit, for, consumption. However, the OPs, in their written version, to the complaint, have repudiated the claim of the complainant, inasmuch, as, that there is no possibility of introduction of, a, foreign object in the sealed bottle, as their, are, various stages washing of bottles at the plant before, its, bottling, to, obviate the introduction of a foreign substance.
6. The complainant avers, that, he purchased the aforesaid bottle of ‘Mango Fruity’ from the OP No.1, on 26.11.2007, which fact has not been contested by the OPs, hence, the averments in the complaint detailing the fact of purchase, of, bottle of Mango Fruity, from the OP No.1, attain truthfulness.
7. The bottle of Mango Fruity, so purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1, on, 26.11.2007, was produced before this Forum on 25.04.2008, as is evident from a perusal of zimni order rendered by this Forum on, 25.04.2008, and it was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat whose report rendered, on, 20.06.2008, details, the, fact that the contents of the fruity , is, not fit for human consumption owing to the presence of sufficient quantity of objectionable suspended and deposited foreign matter and a dead spider. 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 in un-controverted, of, it being in a sealed condition, when, it, was received for analysis, their, hence, deterring the introduction of a foreign substance in it, ousts, the, possible inference arising from delay, of the, foreign matter and dead spider, having been introduced in it subsequent to, its, purchase. Besides, for, want, of, its having been not controverted, it, attains conclusiveness and, is, to be accorded sanctity. Therefore, it is, to be construed, that, the OP No.1, by selling a defective product, which was not fit for human consumption, manufactured by the OP No.2, has not only committed deficiency in service, but, has also indulged in an unfair trade practice.
8. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and the OP No.2, being the manufacturer of the product, 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 Mango Fruity was having a dead spider, in it, hence, rendering it, unfit for human consumption, was sold to the complainant, by the OP No.1, is, quantified at Rs.5,000/-, besides litigation cost of Rs.1,500/-. The amount of damages and cost of litigation so ordered above, shall be defrayed to the complainant by the OP, No.2, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint qua OP No.1, is, dismissed.
9. 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.
Click here to Become Premium Member