Date of filing: 06.08.2019
Date of Disposal: 23.05.2023
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MAY, 2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1280/2019
PRESENT:
SRI.SHIVARAMA. K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RAJU K.S, : MEMBER
SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR, : MEMBER
S/o. Late B.R. Sanjeev Setty,
67 Years, R/at: Flat No.409,
Brundavan Garden,
Vasanthapura Village,
(Rep by Sri. H. Mallan Goud, Advocate)
- V/s -
1) Med Life International Private
Limited, A registered company
Having office at Old No.81/1, New
CMC Khatha No.279, Property
No.81/1-2, 3, 4 & 5, 1st Floor,
Honganasandra Village, Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore-560068.
Represented by its Managing Director.
(Rep. by Sri. Ramesh, Advocate)
2) Pragati Biocare Private Limited,
A Registered Company having its
Office at No.55, & 56, Bikasipura
Main Road, Behind J.C. Industrial
Area, Yelechahalli, Bangalore-560062.
Represented by its Managing Director.
(Notice served – Remained Absent)
3) Krishgir Pharmaceuticals,
Factory at, (A GMP Compliance Unit),
Plot No.165, Industrial Area,
Phase-III, Sanaarpur, Terrace,
Himachal Pradesh State.
Also at:
Krishgir Pharmaceuticals,
Corporate Office at,
S.C.F. 504, C-2, 2nd Floor,
Moto Market, Manimajra,
Represented by its Managing Directors.
(Rep. by Sri. Vijayakumar.S, Advocate)
//JUDGEMENT//
BY SRI. SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT
01. The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for a direction to the opposite party No.1 to 3 to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and such other relief as this Commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
02. It is not in dispute that, opposite party No.1 is engaged in the business of online selling of pharmaceuticals, supplements and allied health care services and had sold the products (medicines and supplements) to the complainant. Further it is not in dispute that, opposite party No.1 is not a manufacturer of the product sold to the complainant.
03. It is the further case of the complainant that, opposite party No.2 & 3 are the manufacturers and engaged in the business of supply of drugs and medicines to opposite party No.1. Further complainant used to purchase medicine “GEBONE” tablets along with the other drugs prescribed by a Dr. Ganesh Vishnudas Ingale and H.M. Krishna Murthy since from 2016. Further the complainant used to purchase the said tablets from opposite party No.1 since 17.01.2017. This being the fact the complainant had purchased the above said tablets from opposite party No.1 manufactured by opposite party No.2 & 3 on 04.07.2018 which was supplied in a packed container of 30 tablets therein. Further on 21.07.2019 he opened the said container to consume it and he was shocked to see the contamination of sharp metal stuff in the said tablet. Since the said tablet was supplied by opposite party No.1 and manufactured by opposite party No.2 & 3, opposite party No.1 to 3 are responsible for the same. Further the sharp metal stuff contained in the tablet was a dangerous one and had the complainant been consumed it, he would have put in trouble and untold things would have been happened. Hence opposite party No.1 to 3 are negligent in manufacturing the tablet and supplying the tablet. Hence the complaint came to be filed.
04. It is the contention of the opposite party No.1 that, he is neither a manufacturer nor a distributor of the said product thereby opposite party No.1 is not liable for any compensation claimed.
05. It is the contention of opposite party No.3 that, the complainant had filed the complaint with an intention to cheat the opposite parties. Further opposite party No.3 never supplied a tablet stated by the complainant. Further GEBONE tablets manufactured by opposite party No.3 as a food supplements and not as a medicine and the same has not been prescribed by Doctor. Hence, it is sought to dismiss the complaint.
06. Opposite party No.2 remained absent in-spite of notice been served.
07. To prove the case, the complainant has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and has got marked EX.P.1 to EX.P.4 documents and M.O. No.1 & 2 are marked. The authorized representative of opposite party No.1 (RW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence-in-chief and got marked EX.R.1 document.
08. Counsels for complainant and opposite party No.1 have filed their respective written arguments.
09. Heard the arguments of complainant and opposite party No.1.
10. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:-
(1) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitle for the
relief sought ?
(3) What order ?
11. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-
POINT NO.1:- In affirmative.
POINT NO.2:- Partly in affirmative.
POINT NO.3:- As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
12. POINT NO.1:- The complainant and RW.1 have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief.
13. The complainant has produced the prescription issued by the Doctor vide EX.P.1. EX.P.2 and EX.P.3 are the tax invoices for having purchased the tablets. EX.P.4 is the copy of the complaint filed before the Commission, Food Safety & Standards, Government of Karnataka, against opposite parties.
14. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that, the container containing the tablet was received on 04.07.2018 marketed and manufactured by different persons and the look up the bottle is deceptive with that of earlier one. In EX.P.3 invoice dated: 04.07.2018 in page No.16 issued in favour of the complainant it is shown that, GEBONE tablet 30 manufactured by Evantas Biotec Private Limited was supplied to the complainant. The complainant got marked the containers as M.O. No.1 & 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that, the tablet sent in M.O.2 container has contained sharp metal stuff in a tablet.
15. On perusal of the tablet kept in M.O. No.2 it appears a sharp metal stuff in the tablet. On perusal of M.O. No.2 the manufacturer name and address is shown as Krishgir Pharmaceuticals (opposite party No.3). In the M.O. No.1 bottle the manufacturers name is shown as Pragathi Biocare Private Limited (opposite party No.2). Opposite party No.3 had admitted in the version that, opposite party No.3 is the manufacturer of GEBONE tablets, but it is not prescribed as medicine and it is to be prescribed only by dietician. We feel since the name of opposite party No.3 is shown in M.O. No.2 the tablet container as manufacturer, opposite party No.3 is responsible for the sharp metal stuff tablet kept in M.O. No.2 bottle.
16. It is the contention of the learned counsel for opposite party No.1 that, with regard to the liability of vendor has come in to force since from 20.07.2020 by way of amendment to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and as the product supplied was prior to that Act came in to force, opposite party No.1 is not liable for the defect in the tablet supplied by the opposite parties. We feel there is merit in the said contention.
17. Since a sharp metal stuff is in the tablet, we feel there is manufacturing defect and negligence in manufacturing the tablet. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.3. Accordingly we answer this point partly in affirmative.
18. POINT NO.2:- The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is the contention of the complainant that, the said sharp metal stuff in the tablet is a dangerous one. On perusal of the tablet, it appears dangerous and if the complainant had consumed the same, definitely there would have been danger to the life of the complainant and untold things would have been happened. Further opposite party No.3 being the manufacturer of tablet shall be very careful in preparing the medicine. We feel since the complainant did not consume the tablet the future things cannot be presumed. Therefore, we feel opposite party No.3 shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards damage to the complainant. Further the act of opposite party made the complainant to approach this Commission. Hence the complainant is entitled for litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly we answer this point partly in affirmative.
19. POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The complaint is allowed in part.
The opposite party No.3 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards damages and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant.
The opposite party No.3 shall comply the order within 30 days. In case, the opposite party No.3 fails to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount of Rs.25,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.
Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.
Applications pending, if any, stands disposed-off in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 23rd Day of MAY 2023)
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA. K)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
//ANNEXURE//
Witness examined for the complainant side:
Sri. B.S.Ranganatha, the complainant (PW.1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.
Documents got marked for complainant side:
- Prescription dated: 17.12.2017 – Ex.P.1
- Tax invoice dt.02.05.2018 (page No.9-12) – Ex.P.2.
- Tax invoice dt: 04.07.2018 (Page No.13-16) – EX.P.3.
- Copy of complaint dt.20.09.2018 – EX.P.4
Witness examined for the opposite party No.1 side:
Sri. Surya Prakash, Employee in API Holdings Pvt Ltd., of opposite party No.1 (RW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.
Documents got marked for Opposite Party No.1 side:
1. Copy of letter of authorization dt.08.02.2023 – EX.R.1.
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA. K)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
