SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the OP to refund the value of coconut oil for Rs.6016/- along with compensation and cost to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
The brief of the complaint :
The complainant is conducting a small scale petty food business like chips making and other bakery sweets items for his livelihood. On 5/3/2022, the complainant had purchased 2 can containing 15 liters and 1 liter 8 pouch of 916 coco brand pure coconut oil from 2nd OP’s shop for an amount of Rs.6016/-. The complainant had purchased the 916 coco brand coconut oil only for making chips and petty food items. On 5/3/2022 the complainant used the 916 coco brand coconut oil from his product, the baking items of chips and other sweets were damaged, colour changed, bad smell occurred and not in a position to eat the food items. So the complainant has not in a position to supply the products and not delivered the items to the market also. Then the complainant informed the matter to both OP’s. The complainant states that after the use of defected coconut oil with other items like rice podi, sugar, masala all are lost and not consumable. He incurred Rs.5000/- as the value of other ingredient items. The complainant states that the 1st OP had sold the cane 916 coco brand pure coconut oil with no label and other description. Thereafter the complainant filed complaints before the SHO Payyanur and Taliparamba, Panchayath Secretary Pala and Chapparappadavu, Chief Minister of Kerala. Then the Food Safety Officer replied that the product 916 coco brand pure coconut oil” was manufactured at Kopttayam Arunapuram and Tamilnadu Tirupur. The 1st OP take license to manufacture the product at Eruvatty, Kannur but no manufacturing unit was conducted at Eruvatty. But the product supplied by 1st OP in the address of Eruvatty and the brochure and advertisement was also published in Eruvatty address. The act of OPs the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence the complaint.
After filing the complaint, notice issued to both OPs .Both OPs received the notice and not appeared before the commission and not filed version . The commission had to hold that the OP have no version as such this case came to be proceed against the OPs are set exparte.
Even though the OPs have remained ex-parte it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by him against the OPs. Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 26 documents marked as Exts.A1 to A26 . The complainant was examined as PW1. So the OPs remain absent in this case. At the end the Commission heard the case on merit.
Let us have a clear glance at the relevant documents. The complainant had purchased 916 coco brand pure coconut oil of 15 liters of 2 cane and 1 liters 8 pouch dtd.5/3/2022 for an amount of Rs.6016/- from 2nd OP and the tax invoice marked as Ext.A1. Ext.A2 is the license issued by Payyanur Municipality in favour of the complainant dtd.30/8/2022. Ext.A3 is the petition filed by the complainant under RTI before GST office Payyanur. Ext.A4 is the application filed by the complainant before the Enforcement officer, Taliparamba dtd.16/10/2023. Ext.A5 is the reply dtd.25/10/2023. Ext.A6 is the application filed by the complainant before Chapparappadavu Grama Panchayath dtd.21/5/2022. In Ext.A7 is the reply to complainant dtd.20/6/2022. In Ext.A8 is the application to Cheruvathur Grama Panchayath Secretary and Ext.A9 is the reply to complainant also. Ext.A10 is the application to Pala Corporation Secretary and Ext.A11 is the reply to the complainant . Exts.A12,A13 and A19 are the application to Food Safety Officer,Payyanur and Ext.A14 is the reply to complainant also. Exts.A15 , A16,A18, and A20 are the reply to complainant. Ext.A21 is the complaint to Chief Minister Dtd.14/11/2022. Exts.A22,A24 are the complaint for DYSP and SHO Payyanur and Ext.A23 is the receipt issued by the DYSP Payyanur. In Ext.A26 is the reply filed by the Food Safety Officer to complainant dtd.28/11/2022 clearly states that at the time of inspection on 12/4/2022 and 30/6/2022 the Eruvatty, Chettiyamkunnel oil Industries and Exports building is locked and the industry is not in working condition. Then the Food Safety officer enquired the neighbors for the working condition of the industry. They stated that there is no manufacturing process of the coconut oil and the license is prevailing upto 26/3/2023. So it is clear that “916 coco brand pure coconut oil” is not manufactured in Kannur district at Eruvatty. But the 1st OP’s brochure and advertisement that the 916 coco brand pure coconut oil is manufactured in his premises at Eruvatty. As per Ext.A7 the reply of Chapparapadavu Panchayath Secretary and Ext.A26 the reply of food Safety officer dtd.28/11/2022 which clearly shows that the 1st OP is not manufactured the 916 coco brand pure coconut oil Eruvatty Kannur District. So there is unfair trade practice on the part of 1st OP’s side. According to the complainant the OPs are directly bound to redress the grievance caused to the complainant. The act of 1st OP is that there is unfair trade practice on the ground that 916 coco brand pure coconut oil is not manufactured in Eruvatty Kannur District. But the advertisement and brochure in his premises at Eruvatty shows that Chettiyakunnel Oil Industries and Exports, Eruvatty,Kannur(FSSA/L No.11319013000396). Therefore we hold that the 1st OP is liable to refund the value of coconut oil Rs.6106/- to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost .
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the 1st opposite party to refund the value of 916 coco brand pure coconut oil worth Rs.6016/- to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.6016/- carries 12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization . Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019
Exts:
A1- Bill copy dtd.5/3/2022
A2-license dtd.30/8/2022
A3-RTI petition before GST office Payyanur dtd.10/10/23
A4-Application submitted before enforcement officer,Taliparamba dtd.16/10/23
A5&A7-Reply to complainant dtd.25/10/23, 20//6/22
A6- Application filed before Secretary Chapparappadavu Grama Panchayath dtd.21/5/22
A8- Application filed before Secretary Cheruvathur Grama Panchayath dtd.26/5/22
A9-Reply of Ext.A8-dtd.13/6/22
A10- Application filed before Secretary Pala Corporation dtd.22/7/22
A11- Reply of Ext.A10 dtd.12/8/22
A12&A13- Application to Food Safety Officer Payyanur dtd.7/4/22,22/6/22
A14-Reply to complainant dtd.22/7/22
A15-Application to Food Commissioner dtd.7/1/23
A16- Reply to complainant dtd.18/4/23
A17&A19- Application to Food Safety Officer Payyanur 7/1/23,13/6/23
A18&A20-Reply to complainant dtd.16/1/23, 17/6/23
A21- Complaint to Chief Minster dtd.14/11/22
A22- complaint to DYSP Payyanur dtd23/4/22
A23-Receipt issued by DYSP Payyanur dtd.23/4/22
A24-Complaint to SHO Payyanur dtd.29/7/22
A25- copy o petition register before SHO Payyanur
A26- Reply to complainant dtd.28/11/22.
PW1- Prahaladhan- Complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
