Complainant through Lrd. Adv. Smt. Kuvalekar
Opponents through Lrd Adv. Shirgaonkar/Bhawar
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(31/12/2013)
The present complaint is filed by the consumer against Manufacturing Company for defect in the goods as well as for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are as follows,
1] The complainant is a resident of Lonawala. The opponent no. 1 is a manufacturing company and the opponent no. 2 is a godown of opponent no. 1. The complainant is a Naval Officer posted at Lonavala. On 19/6/2010, he had purchased 160 gms sealed jar of Parle Cheeslings from M/S Vijay Provision Stores, Salunke Vihar Road, Pune. He found human hair in the sealed jar. It was clearly visible from the container, as the same was transparent. According to the complainant, there is serious manufacturing defect and deficiency in service and he had intimated this fact to the opponent. The Local dealer Mr. Mubin on 9/7/2010 had physically verified the complaint and recorded the batch number of the container. Thereafter, the complainant had informed this fact to the opponent through e-mails and letters and by sending notice, but the opponent did not take cognizance of his complaint. Hence, he has asked compensation of Rs. 1 lac for deficiency in service and for defects in the goods.
2] The opponent appeared and resisted the complaint by filing written version. They have denied the contents of the complaint. According to them, the product was not sent for investigation and it was not examined in the laboratory. Hence, it can not be said that there is a manufacturing defect. The complainant had not produced said product before the opponent, hence they have no opportunity to investigate the matter. It is further contended that the opponent is a world-wide reputed company in eatable products. The Company has well equipped and highly advanced machineries in its plant. The opponent company used to produce its products automatically with the help of machinery. The human presence in the production activity is not at all required. 100% hygienic, cleanly environment is maintained in the company plant. There is no possibility of presence of human hair in the jar. When the product is reached to the retailer’s shop, that might not handled properly and certain defects might have been occurred in the product due to mishandling. The opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3] After considering pleadings of both the parties and scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum and hearing the arguments of both the counsels, the following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether complainant has proved that there is defect in the product as well as deficiency in service on the part of the opponent? | In the affirmative. |
2. | What order? | Complaint is partly allowed. |
REASONS :-
4] The complainant has produced the receipt of the product, which was purchased from the retailer, M/S Vijay Provisions Store. He has also produced the sealed jar, which was purchased by him. It is transparent one and human hair can be seen by naked eyes. It is the case of the opponent that the product should be sent to laboratory for inspection. When the human hair can be seen by the naked eyes in the sealed jar of eatable, there is no need of any other evidence to prove that there is defect in the product. The principle of ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’ can be squarely applicable in the present proceeding, as the things themselves are speaking the truth. Initially, the opponent in the reply to the letter of the complainant has admitted the defect in the product. The letter dated 9/8/2010, which was sent by the opponent is produced by the complainant on record, in which the opponent had shown apology by saying, “we are extremely sorry for the inconvenience caused to you and sincerely apologies for the same”. This fact supports the story of the complainant. The objection raised by the opponent are bound to be turned down, as in the present case, there is no necessity of sending the product to the laboratory for investigation. In the result, this forum is of the opinion that the complainant has proved that there s defect in the product, as well as deficiency in service.
5] The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs. 1 lac, but he has not explained as to how he had quantified the said compensation. That compensation appears to be exorbitant and after considering the price of the product, as well as the consequences, which might have been suffered by the complainant, compensation of Rs. 10,000/- would meet the ends of justice, on the ground of defect in the goods, deficiency in service, mental and physical sufferings as well as cost of the litigation. In the result, we answer the points accordingly and pass the following order.
** ORDER **
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the opponent
has caused deficiency in service.
3. The opponent is directed to pay an amount
of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only)
towards defective goods, compensation for
deficiency in service, mental and physical
sufferings and cost of the litigation, to the
complainant, within six weeks from the
date of receipt of this order.
4. Muddemal property be send to Food &
Civil Supply office, Pune for disposal
according to law.
5. Copies of this order be furnished to the
parties free of cost.
6. Parties are directed to collect the sets,
which were provided for Members within
one month from the date of order, otherwise
those will be destroyed.
Place – Pune
Date- 31/12/2013
