Date of Filing:15-12-22015
Date of Order: 10-6-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
Monday, the 10th day of June, 2019
C.C.No.628 /2015
Between
Prashanth Kumar Polkam S/o.Laxminarayana
Aged about 34 years, Occ:Business,
R/o.H.No.5-71, road No.9, Bhavani Nagar,
Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District ………. Complainant
And
- A.P.Co-operative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd.,
Unit-2, 9th floor, Parishrama Bhavan,
Fathemaidan Road, Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad
- D-Mart, represented by its Manager/
Managing Partner/authorized person,
Zinda Tilismath Road, Amberpet,
Hyderabad .…… Opposite parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri D.Srinivas Reddy
Counsel for the Opposite party No.1 : M/s. M.Papa Reddy
Opposite party No.2: Sri M.S.Srinivas Iyengar
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 for the relief of damage and compensation amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- for causing mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards costs of this complaint.
- Complainant’s case in brief is that he had purchased eleven (11) packets of Vijaya Sunflower Oil from opposite party No.2 on 15-10-2015 on a cost of Rs.880/- and the batch number as printed in the oil packet is “pkd.Sep/2015/B.No.0379.Hyd”. Some of the oil packets were used by the family members and they became sick with motions, vomitings and fever. Thereupon complainant and his family members opened a packet and noticed fungus and looking like duplicate oil with different smell. When the oil is heated it is collapsing like small pieces. The oil packets are purchased by using the credit card of complainant’s father Sri P.Laxminarayana. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 and discussed the issue with one Kapil who is main partner of opposite party No.2 then checked the duplicate oil at the reception counter of opposite party No.2. Original oil was compared with the duplicate oil and the process was recorded by C.C.Cameras. There is a C.D filed for the testing of oil on 17-11-2015. Anil and Sandeep the officers of opposite party No.2 having promised to take necessary steps neglected the issue.
The complainant approached the officials of opposite party No.1 for several times with a request to take necessary action but it was not any use. From the acts of the opposite parties it is evident that they are intentionally and deliberately avoiding to take appropriate action with regard to complainant’s complaint. This behavior of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has been put to serious inconvenience, hardship and mental agony apart from irreparable financial loss and he is entitled to claim damage and compensation from the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint.
- Opposite party No.1 &2 filed separate counters denying the complainant’s claim of the damage and compensation.
The contest of the opposite party No.1 is that the opposite party No.1 has not supplied subject oil packets to opposite party No.2 since the batch Number of the lot supplied as mentioned on the oil packet is a four (4) digit number and not belonging to opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 does not have system of batch number with four (4) digit numerical and it is in the format of date/month. The opposite party No.1 supplied material manufactured in September, 2015 with batch No. (i) 03/09 (ii) 08/09 (iii) 16/09 to opposite party No.2. Hence the complainant’s allegation that opposite party No.1manufactured defect oil and supplied to opposite party No.2 for sale is absolutely false. Even according to the complainant’s own contention the oil packet found to be a duplicate one.
Opposite party No.1 is a Government undertaking and owes responsibility to the general public. It follows stringent quality control and testing measures before releasing the same into the market. The supplies are made with very little margin in profits. The claim of the complainant that he approached opposite party No.1 on several occasions with request to take necessary action but it neglected is false. Similarly the claim of the complainant that himself and his family members were put to serious inconvenience, hardship and mental agony and irreparable financial loss are untenable and absolutely false.
Opposite party No.1 received the open oil packet through opposite party No.2 on 27-10-2015 and tested in the laboratory and report of the values shows that quality of the sample furnished by opposite party No.2 is within the specified range of quality control and complied with the standards. The physical appearance of the samples are not matching with the oils produced and supplied by opposite party No1 to opposite party No.2 and other distributors. It has not received any such complaint in respect of the oils supplied by it during the month of September 2015. Being a Government under taking immediately collected several samples from different provisional stores and after testing all the said samples were found to be quality. There was no act of deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1, and the complaint has no merits and required to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
- Opposite party No.2 filed separate written version denying the allegations mentioned in the complaint. Its defense is that it is not a legal sanctity and cannot be sued as it is only a trade name of super market run by Avenue Super market Ltd which is not made a party to the proceedings. The complainant himself cannot determine product defect without proper analysis or test of the goods as per Section 13 (1) (c ) and in the absence of any analyzed report of test the complaint is not maintainable in law.
Opposite party No.2 is only a retailer and sells goods in the same condition as it receives from the manufacturer. The goods were purchased from S.K.Enterprises who are the dealers for the manufacturers as such opposite party No.2 is not a necessary party. The manufacturer is the opposite party No.1. The said product was not sold by opposite party No.2 it might have been procured from any retail store and there is no proof to relate the product with opposite party No..2. The opposite party No.2 has not sold the product with batch No.B.No D 379.Hyd to the complainant. When the complainant alleges the defect in goods it cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the product. The Forum should have obtained sample of the goods from the complainant to find out whether goods suffer from any defect. No such procedure has been sought for by the complainant and there is no analysis report or test report to show that the product is not a standard quality. Hence the complainant cannot maintain the present complaint on the alleged facts.
Soon after the complainant brought to the attention of opposite party No.2 about the alleged defect of the product it communicated the same to manufacturer who recalled the product for examination. Opposite party No.2 is not responsible for the quality of the product being a retailer hence opposite party No.2 is not liable for any damages or costs to the complainant. The complainant cannot claim damages without pleading as to how he suffered. The complaint is lacking in material particulars and is a vague and speculative one and deserves to be dismissed.
In the enquiry stage the complainant has got filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the material averments of the complaint and to support the same he has got exhibited receipt, photographs and copy of his Aadhar card. Similarly for the Opposite Party No.1 evidence affidavit of one Sri B.Rajesham stated to be its marketing Manager is got filed and facts narrated are in line with the defense taken in the written version. For opposite party No.2 evidence affidavit of one Sri B.Surender stated to be its Area Manager is got filed and facts narrated by him are in tune with the defense set out in the written version filed on its behalf. Three ((3) documents are got exhibited on behalf opposite party No.2. For Opposite party No.2 alone filed written arguments. For the complainant and opposite party No.1 oral submissions are made.
On a consideration of material placed on record the following points have emerged for consideration .
- Whether the complainant could be able to substantiate the subject Oil packets were sold by opposite party No.2 and manufactured by opposite party No.1?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts claimed in the complaint?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: The essence of the complainant’s case is he purchased eleven (11) packets of Vijaya Sunflower Oil from opposite party No.2 on 15-10-2015. On a cost of Rs.880/- and after consuming some of the packets himself and his family members fell sick with motions, vomiting and fever. Hence suspected the oil and opened one of the packet and noticed that packet was with full of Fungus looking as duplicate with a different smell. It is further noticed that on heating the oil collapsed like small pieces. The defence of the opposite parties is twofold. One is when complaint alleges the product is not standard one and suffers in quality it has to be analyzed by an analyst in laboratory to submit the report and without such procedure the complainant cannot claim that the product purchased by him suffers from standards and is contaminated one with Fungus. To overcome this defense of the opposite party No.2 in the written version the complainant came up with a petition I.A.No.115/2016 with a prayer to send the Sunflower packets purchased to an appropriate laboratory for analysis or test for the quality. The said petition was allowed by this Forum on 8-11-2016 and sample was sent to the Chief Public Analyst I/C, State Food Laboratory, Nacharam and a report dated 5-1-2017 was received by this Forum. The information expressed by Chief Analyst is that the sample is not unsafe. Though this document has not been exhibited by either of the parties to the proceedings this Forum is inclined to consider it because this report has been invited by the complainant himself by filing a petition to send the sample to analyst for report in support of his allegations. He filed a petition in I.A.90 of 2017 for summoning the Chief Food Analyst for his cross examination same was dismissed by this Forum for the reason that soon after receipt of the report of the Chief Analyst he did not file any objection and did not ask to send another sample either to Central laboratory or I.I.C.T. The report received from the Public Analyst State Food Libratory at Nacharam falsifies the allegation of the complainant that on opening of the sample packet he noticed that packet is with full of Fungus giving different smell. The opposite parties also have got tested the sample through Indian Institute of Chemical Technology at Hyderabad a Central Government Institute this report also does not support the complainant’s allegations.
In the light of these reports the complainant’s allegation that the oil packets purchased from opposite party No.2 are contaminated and when consumed himself and his family members fell sick and suffered with health problems. As rightly pointed out by opposite parties the complainant is not an expert in the field of analyzing the food product including the oils. Since reports received from the Laboratory of I.I.C.T does not disclose the samples under analysis are not standard one and is spurious complainant’s allegations cannot be countenanced. Accordingly point is answered.
Point No.2: In view of the findings that the complainant’s allegations that oil packets sold by opposite party No.2 are contaminated and containing Fungus found to be false the question of sufferings by him and family members does not arise. Hence he is not entitled for any of the claims made in the complaint.
Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us on this the 10th day of June , 2019
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1- receipt dt.15-10-2015
Ex.A2- photographs
Ex.A3- copy of Aadhar card of complainant
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite parties
Ex.B1-Analysis report dt.27-10-2015
Ex.B2- Lab report dt.08-03-2016
Ex.B3- Lab report and invoice dt.08-03-2016
MEMBER PRESIDENT
