BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.627/2015

DATED ON THIS THE 24^h March 2017

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY,

President

1.     This complaint is filed for a direction to opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- towards treatment charges and Rs.3,00,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. 
2.     The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that on 18.06.2013 between 10 and 11 am, the complainant went to the hotel of the opposite party and order set Dosa, it was served by the server.  It is noticed by the complainant while eating Dosa that apart from rice item other item might have been included in the Dosa.  Then it was questioned by him for which opposite party has not properly answered.  Immediately complainant went to Food Inspector, Mysuru City Corporation.  Then, the officials visited the hotel and inspected regarding the cleanliness and collected the sample of Dosa and the product used for preparing the Dosa.  Subsequently, complainant took Aurvedic treatment due to eating of this Dosa and spend Rs.5,000/-.  On 21/26.06.2013, the Designated Officer, Food Safety and Standrd Act has inspected the collected sample and has given report, Dosa was prepared with adulterated item (PÀ®¨ÉgÀPÉ) and issued the certificate.  Then the complainant issued a letter on 24.08.2013 to the opposite party and there was no reply.  Again another legal notice was issued for which the opposite party has given untenable reply.  Thereby, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed.  The cause of action arise on 18.06.2013, 24.08.2013, 09.09.2014 and 17.10.2014 when the notice was given to the opposite party. 
3.     After registering the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party, opposite party appeared and filed the following version:- The complainant has visited the hotel of the opposite party on 18.06.2013 between 10 Am and 11 Am as per para 7 of the complaint, the date of cause of action arose on 18.06.2013.  As such, the complaint is barred by limitation, as it is filed beyond the period of 2 years.  It is false to allege that that the opposite party has misbehaved with complainant and neglected him and threatened him.  This opposite party is not aware of the complaint given to Mysuru City Corporation and the Corporation authorities not seized any materials from the hotel of this opposite party.  Thereby, question of getting any report does not arise.  The opposite party is running his hotel business since 40 years by getting necessary license from Mysuru City Corporation and there was no such complaint.  This complaint is filed only malafide intention and to damage the reputation.  The other allegation that he has spend Rs.5,000/- for treatment is not correct.  Thereby, the opposite party has sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     On the above contention, this matter is set down for evidence.  During evidence, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and closed further evidence.  Likewise, affidavit of Proprietor of opposite party filed and further evidence closed.  The complainant and his advocate absent.  Heard the arguments of advocate for opposite party only.  Then this matter is posted for orders.
5.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in supplying adulterated Dosa, thereby he is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
2.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- Though the opposite party has alleged that he has given telephonic message to the Mysuru City Commission Authority and authorities came to the hotel and collected samples.  But, comlainant has not placed any materials to show that the Designated Officer, Food Safety and Standard Act visited the hotel of the present opposite party and collected Dosa samples for examination.  In the absence of such material evidence, it cannot be said that the report given by Designated Officer is relating to the Dosa sample collected from the present opposite party’s hotel.  Thereby, the reliance made by the complainant on the report dated 21/26.06.2013 cannot be believed.  Basing on this, no action can be taken against opposite party since there was no opportunity for present opposite party to look to the sample which was collected by Designated Officer.  In the circumstances, even there is any sample examined by the Designated Officer which is not a sample collected from opposite party’s hotel.  Thereby, the case of the complaint lacks merits.  Hence, complainant is not entitled for the reliefs.  Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the negative.
8. Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, complainant is not entitled for any reliefs.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 24^h March 2017)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER