BEFORE THE PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM
GOMATI DISTRICT ::: UDAIPUR
CASE NO. C.C. 02 OF 2014
Shri Sukanta Dey,
Inspector of Food,
Office of the SDM, Amarpur - Complainant
Versus
Sri PranKishore Banik,
Nutan Bazar, Amarpur. - Opposite Party
PRESENT
Shri Asish Pal,
PRESIDENT
Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,
Gomati District, Udaipur
And
Shri Haridas Roy Barman
&
Smti. Runu Das (Roy Choudhuri)
MEMBERS
COUNSEL
For the Complainant - Self.
For the Opposite Party - Mr. Debikanta Baishnab,
Learned Avocate.
Date of Delivery of Judgment - 03.01.2015
J U D G M E N T
This case under Consumers Protection Act arises on the Complaint filed by Shri Sukanta Dey, Inspector of Food and Civil Supply. He filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumers Protection Act, being authorized by the Government vide notification dated 14.12.2012. The complaint is filed on behalf of the consumers.
2. The petitioner’s case, in short, is that being authorised representative of the State of Tripura for the interest of the Consumers, he inspected the showroom and godown of the O.P. Prankishor Banik after giving public notice. After searching of the establishment the complainant detected 193 nos. of cold drinks and beverage of different company in the shop of the O.P. The complainant visited the shop on 20.12.2012 and found all those articles are already expired. Those were found with the other stationary goods. Date of manufacturing were in the year 2011 and 2013 and those were to be utilized within six months. More than six month period gone but those articles were kept for sale to the consumers. The O.P. could not give satisfactory response so, the complainant filed this case.
3. Respondent appeared and filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that the O.P. is a reputed businessman of Nutanbazar and he has status in the society.
4. The petitioner appeared and submitted the notification and also examined two witnesses they are the petitioner Sri Sukanta Dey, PW1 and Sri Ranjan Deb, Asst. Director of Food, PW2. Opposite party also produced statement on affidavit of the O.P.
5. After going through the evidence, I shall now determine the following points:
I. Whether there was deficiency of service by the O.P.
II. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the Compensation
FINDINGS & DECISIONS AND REASONS FOR DECISION ON
POINT NOS. 1 & 2
6. To decide the above points, the evidence are to be scrutinized and evaluated.
From the evidence of PW1 Sri Sukanta Dey,, it is found that one showroom and two godowns of the O.P. were searched by him. They saw many cold drinks and beverage bottles kept for sale after expiry period. Total 193 nos. bottles were found available. Dates of all those cold drinks and beverage were expired. 8 nos. bottles were seized as specimen copy.
PW2. Sri Ranjan Deb also went along with PW1 and searched the showroom and godown of the O.P. He also supported that 193 bottles of cold drinks and beverages were found physically in the godown. Dates of the articles were already expired.
O.P. Prankishore Banik in the statement on affidavit stated that evidence of both the witnesses are false. He incurred loss. Of Rs. 20,000/- for conducting the case.
On scrutiny of the case record, it is found that at least seven dates are given for evidence but the lawyer of the O.P. did not appear to cross examine the witnesses and the O.P. declined to cross examine the witnesses of the complainant.
In the Consumer Court, enquiry is to make on deficiency of service or other matter. Right of cross examination is there but it is to be utilized by the party. The cold drinks are the articles sold or kept or sale after expiry. It is true that the complainant, inspector of food, is not a consumer but by the notification dated 14.12.2012 the food inspector are authorised to visit the shops or establishments under their territorial jurisdiction and file complaint. The Consumers Protection Act, 1986, has recognized the rights of the consumers which include the right to be protected against the goods hazardous to life and property. Unfair and restrictive trade practice in respect of quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of the goods. Most of the consumers do not approach the consumer court when they fall victim of exploitation from the harmful goods and deficiency of service. On this instant case, the petitioner being authorized by the Government filed this complaint on behalf of the consumers and complained about the quality of goods kept for sale to the consumers. The complainant is a Govt. servant, he is a Food Inspector and another witness PW2 is also the Asst. Director for Food, who clearly stated about the harmful goods kept for sale by the O.P. The O.P. failed to produce any evidence to support that he kept those articles i.e. cold drinks or beverages by maintaining purity and standard. So, relying on the evidence of these two witnesses, this Consumer Court has come to the conclusion that the articles i.e. cold drink and beverage which were kept for sale are expired and not pure. Standard, purity, quality and potency of the articles not maintained. The consumer fell victim of the exploitation from the defective and harmful goods. Thus, both the points are decided in favour of the complainant.
7. In view of my above findings over the two points, it is found that the O.P. shopkeeper committed the deficiency of service by keeping the goods hazardous to life. For such act he is to pay compensation to the complainant who filed the complaint on behalf of the consumers, being authorized by the Government. Therefore the O.P. Sri Prankishore Banik is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 7,500/- (Rupee seven thousand five hundred) to the complainant within 1 (one) month. In case of failure, he is to pay interest over it @ 9% per annum till payment is made. Complainant is to deposit the compensation amount in Consumers Welfare Fund opened in the name of Director, Food & Civil Supplies.
8. The case stands disposed of.
9. Supply copy of this judgment to the parties at free of cost.
A N N O U N C E D
(Haridas Roy Barman) (Smti. Runu Das (Roy Choudhuri) (Asish Pal)
Member Member President
Consumer Dispute Redressal Consumer Dispute Redressal Consumer Dispute Redressal
Forum, Gomati District Forum, Gomati District Forum, Gomati District
Udaipur Udaipur Udaipur
