I have purchased Your Brand Tea (Brooke-Bond) (250Gms) (2 Packet) under the Scheme Mala-Mal Offer on 05.11.2006 vide Bill No.000008 from BUDGET BAZAAR A-8, Milap Nagar, Main Najafgarh Road, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi-110059. Inside the packet I have found a discount coupen of Rs.5/-(Rupees Five only) but when I give it to the seller to encash, the seller refused to encash it due to the offer had expired on 30-08.2006. I am very surprised to see that on pack that the offer really expired on 30.08.2006 but the Packing of the packet in the Month of September-2006. I am too much surprised again because If the offer
expired in August-2006 then how the HLL can pack the product in September-2006 under the scheme.

You have a valid point :&. It is nothing but unfair trade practice. A fit case for Consumer Court, Kindly provide us your full contact details and the bill details.
Regards,
Admin

Makardhwaja Rout S/O Shri P.C.Rout,

C/O H. Singh, Kuchar Paying Guest House Ward No.8,

House No.13, near Sana Restaurant, Bye Pass Road,

Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour-173025.





… Complainant.

Versus





1. The Malvika Supermarket, ‘Y’ Point,

Paonta Sahib through its Manager,

Distrcit Sirmour, H.P.



2. M/S Hindustan Lever Limited,

Barotiwala IA, District Solan, H.P.

Through its Chairman.





…Opposite Parties





O R D E R:





This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He avers that he for his personal use purchased different items including the Lux soap from the OP No.1, on, 03.01.2008, weighing 75 grams, which is manufactured by the OP No.2. He further proceeded to aver that when he weighed the aforesaid soap, it was 69 grams instead of 75 grams. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OPs, in their written version, to the complaint, besides raising preliminary objections, denied that the OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the underweight soap and further denied that in the absence of proper facts regarding veracity of soap, method and place of weighing, the complainant has filed a false and concocted complaint in order to extract money. 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, rival 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 purchased the underweight purported lux soap, from the OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.2, under a bill annexed with the complaint as Annexure-A. The complainant avers that in the label and wrapper reflected, that, though it was to weigh 75 grams, yet, as a matter of fact, when he came to weigh it, it, was found 69 grams, in weight hence, it was deposited in the Forum.

6. However, on the date of its production, the complainant did not file any application for its being directed to be sent for its being weighed by the appropriate authority/laboratory for the determination, of, its weight. Only on the aforesaid steps having been taken by the counsel for the complainant, hence, on a consequential determination of, its, weight by the appropriate authority, would have, as such, persuaded, us, to countenance the contention of the complainant. In the absence thereof, it is not in the fitness of things to accord sanctity, as well, as, believe the averment of the complainant that the soap as purchased by him from the OP No.1, was, underweight. Hence, for lack of said best evidence, it cannot be concluded by any stretch of imagination, that their was any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice, in manufacturing or selling the purported underweight soap.

7. Resultantly, for reasons aforesaid, we do not find any force in the complaint and the same being without any merit deserves dismissal and we order accordingly. No order as to the cost. 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.