DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FAZILKA.

Complaint No. : CC/107/2023

Date of Institution : 03.10.2023

Date of Decision : 19.12.2024

Satpal Khariwal S/o Ram Gopal R/o H.No.1074, St.No.3, Abohar, District Fazilka.

………..Complainant

Versus

1. Shri Naivedyam Sweets and Bakers, G.T. Road, Near Pilot Chowk, Ferozepur Cantt, through its Prop.

2. Asstt. Controller, Legal Metrology, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur Cantt.

    

…….Opposite parties

Complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Quorum:     Sh.Vishal Arora, President.

Sh.Raghbir Singh Sukhija, Member. 

Smt.Tajinder Kaur, Member.

Present:       Sh.Satpal Khariwal, complainant in person.

Opposite party No.1 Ex-parte.

Sh.Manoj Tripathi, counsel for opposite party No.2.

ORDER

(Vishal Arora, President):

                  Complainant has filed the present complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties for seeking directions to refund an amount of Rs.40/- as the cost of the sweets less delivered, to impose punitive cost because of adoption of unfair trade practice in the case of the complainant and large number of consumers, to stop indulging in such type of unfair trade practices i.e. charging cost of box while selling sweets in deceptive way besides Rs.15,000/- as compensation for harassment alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Briefly stated, the case of complainant is that he purchased one Kg mixed sweets on 19.09.2023 and paid Rs.200/- to the opposite party No.1 vide bill No.63440 dated 19.09.2023. The opposite party No.1 is also selling sweets of high standard ranging from Rs.500/- to Rs.900/- per Kg. It has been pleaded that the opposite party No.1 weighed the sweets together with the box i.e. one Kg. including the weight of box also whereas the complainant purchased one Kg sweets and also paid the price of one Kg of sweets to the opposite party No.1. The complainant after consuming the sweets, weighed the empty container (box) and found that the weight of the box was 200 Gms. Meaning thereby, the opposite party No.1 charged the price of one Kg. sweets for 800 Gms sweets from the complainant and has indulged in unfair trade practice by charging the cost of the box deceptively by giving lesser quantity of sweets under the guise of weighing the same with the box.

3. It has further been pleaded that the packing of goods is also a state in putting the goods in deliverable state. If you want to buy biscuit or bread, those should not be given in open, rather should be packed in such a manner to save them from external atmosphere. All kinds of expenses incurred in order to putting the goods in a deliverable state, shall be suffered by the seller. The provisions of Sub-Section 5 of Section 36 of Sale of Goods Act, 1936 makes it absolutely clear that unless otherwise agreed, the expenses of incidental thereto to putting the goods into a deliverable state, shall be borne by the seller. As such, under the provisions of the law, all the expenses with regard to the packing, shall be borne by the vendor in order to putting the goods into a deliverable state. If some body purchases one Kg sweets, the opposite party No.1 will deliver the same in box. Meaning thereby that if the weight of the container is 200 Gms, the empty container will cost the consumer with Rs.180/- if the cost of sweets is Rs.900/- per Kg. In this way, lacs of consumers are being duped off by the opposite party No.1 by indulging in unfair/deceptive trade practice and not supplying the sweets as per ordered quantity. Hence, this complaint.

4. The complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 05.10.2023, the complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

5. As per office report, notice was sent to the opposite party No.1, but despite service, nobody appeared on its behalf either in person or through counsel. Therefore, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.11.2023.

6. Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared and filed its written version to the complaint and raised certain preliminary objections inter alia to the effect that the complainant has not claimed redressal of any grievance from opposite party No.2.

7. On merits, the opposite party No.2 denied all the allegations of the complainant claiming that the same belongs to the opposite party No.1. It has been pleaded that the Legal Metrology Department, Ferozepur Division is the Incharge and after receiving the complaint in writing or on the portal, the department swiftly takes action against the institution. After receiving the complaint from the complainant Satpal Khariwal, the department inspected the institution of the opposite party No.1 and compounded Rs.7000/- as per The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 on 17.11.2023. In the end, the opposite party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

8. The complainant along with the present complaint has placed on record his affidavit (Ex.C1); Bill dated 19.09.2023 (Ex.C2); Empty Box (Ex.C3). Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence list of challans (Ex.OP2/1); copy of, e-challan (Ex.OP2/2) and affidavit of Sh.Pritpal Singh (Ex.OP2/3) and closed evidence.

9. We have carefully gone through the record and heard the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, who have argued on the same lines as per their pleadings and careful consideration has been given to their respective submissions.

10. The averments of the complainant is that he purchased One Kg mixed sweets on 19.09.2023 by paying Rs.200/- to Shri Naivedyam Sweets & Bakers (the opposite party No.1) and after consuming the sweets, the weight of the empty box was 200 Gms whereas opposite party No.1 charged the price of One Kg sweets from him instead of 800 Gms sweets. It has been argued that the box of sweets manufactured and sold by the opposite party No.1 contained sweets less in weight by 200 Gms from the declared net weight of 1 Kg and the complainant while buying the sweets paid its MRP of Rs.200/- and is entitled to enjoy the full declared net quantity i.e. 1 Kg of the sweets.

    Perusal of the file reveals that the complainant has not produced on record any bill regarding purchase of One Kg mixed sweets on 19.09.2023 issued by the opposite party No.1, rather has produced on record one bill No.63440 dated 19.09.2023 (Ex.C2) in which the rate of mix sweet box is mentioned as “Rs.1000” and quantity of “mixed sweets” is mentioned as “0.200” and payable amount including SGST and CGST is mentioned as Rs.200/-, which shows that the complainant has purchased only 200 Gms mixed sweets for Rs.200/- instead of One Kg mixed sweets as alleged by the complainant. He has not produced on record any documentary evidence to prove that he has purchased One Kg mixed sweets from the opposite party No.1. As such, he has failed to prove the averments made in the present complaint by producing any cogent and convincing evidence. Thus, he is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

11. In view of what has been discussed above, the present complaint fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and file be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission

19-12-2024

5. (Vishal Arora)

President

(Raghbir Singh Sukhija)

Member

(Tajinder Kaur)

Member