Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/453/2020

Manpreet Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

24 Seven GPIL - Opp.Party(s)

Virat Rana

13 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/453/2020
Date of Institution	:	14/10/2020
Date of Decision	:	13/01/2023

 

Manpreet Kumar son of Sh. Surinder Kumar resident of House No.1087, Street No.10®, Faridkot.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. 24 Seven GPIL, Regd. Office: Macropolo Building, Ground Floor, Next to Kala Chowky Post Office, Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400033 (through its Managing Directors).
2. Twenty Four Seven Convenience Store, 4, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025 (through its Managing Directors).
3. Daffodils Beverages Shop No.A/4-1-2-3, Pashupati Complex, Village Kalwar, Bhiwandi, Maharashtra-421302 (through its Proprietor).
4. Coolberg Beverages Pvt. Ltd., 406, ‘A’ Wing, Universal Business Park, Chandivali, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400072 (through its Managing Directors).

     (Complaint against OP No.1 to 4 dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2020).

5. 24 Seven, M/s Kapoor Service Station, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh-160022 (through its Proprietor).

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	None for Complainant.
	:	Complaint against OP No.1 to 4 dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2020.
	:	Sh.Vipul Joshi, Counsel for OP No.5.

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant visited the store of OP No.5 and placed the order for 9020 Coolberg Malt Non-Alcholic Beer 300 ML and therefore, received the bills which was worth Rs.69/- by cash (Annexure C-1). After getting the product he left the store and opened the beverage and found that the taste of the item was not similar to the taste which he used to drink earlier. The complainant further looked at the manufacturing date on the bottle and found that the manufacturing date of the beverage was 24.02.2020 (Annexure C-2). The complainant after inspection got to know that the drink got expired on 24.08.2020 and the OP No.5 had sold him the expired product which caused gastric problems in his stomach. The complainant approached the attendant of the store of OP No.5 and complained about the selling of the expired product. He asked the attendant of the OP No.5 for replacement and return of the amount charged. But the OP No.5 flatly refused for the same by saying that it is the duty of the consumer to check the product before buying. The complainant also sent the legal notice to the OPs dated 31.08.2020 (Annexure C-3 & C-4). Hence alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, complainant filed this complaint.
2.     Complaint against OP No.1 to 4 dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2020.
3.     OP No.5 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the same beverage is stocked and sold by several departmental stores and other such outlets across the city of Chandigarh. It is entirely conceivable for the complainant to have purchased the particular bottle reflected in the photograph from any other shop on any other date. In fact, even the bar-code reflected on the said bottle is common to the millions of bottles that are manufactured, supplied, stocked and sold at several other shops. The particular bottle referred to in the complaint is exactly the same one that was sold to the complainant by the store in question vide the invoice dated 30.08.2020. It is also submitted that the complainant ought to be directed to physically produce the bottle for its examination by referring to its Batch No. etc., and reconciling the same with the stock purchase records of the OP No.5. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.5.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The sole grouse of the complainant through present complaint is that he was sold an expiry bottle of Coolberg Malt Non-Alcholic Beer 300 ML.
7.     Evidently as per Annexure C-1, (the copy of the bill/invoice) an amount of Rs.69/- was paid by the complainant in cash to the OP No.5 for the aforesaid bottle. Annexure C-2 is the document depicting date of manufacture as 24.02.2020 and the date of purchase as per Annexure C-1 is 30.08.2020. Hence, it is alleged that the product was consumable only within six months of manufacturing date and not beyond that. Therefore, as per the complainant, the OPs are deficient in selling expiry product on their outlet.
8.     The stand taken by OP No.5 (the store) is that the bottle in question has not been sold at its store. Hence there is no point of deficiency in service on its part.
9.     After going through the documents on record, it is abundantly clear that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.69/- to buy bottle in question.
10.     Coming to the first point regarding selling expired product, in our opinion in case if any issue of expiry date was there, it was the duty of the complainant to get it verified there and then by taking appropriate steps to obtain expert opinion/the report of certain laboratory to obtain genuine useful evidence to take appropriate action against Opposite Party if so was required.  But the complainant failed to do so and raised the issue directly through the legal notice & thereafter through this complaint which does not at all prove that the bottle claimed to be expired one was that which was purchased from the store of OP No.5. Hence, the plea of complainant that he was sold expired bottle of beverage by OPs is not tenable and liable to be rejected.
11.     Coming to the second point of Annexure C-2, the date of expiry mentioned over the bottle is concerned, it cannot be concluded that Annexure C-2, is having relevancy with the product mentioned over bills Annexure C-1. Hence, in the absence of any expert opinion/report of the certain lab and relevancy of Annexure C-2 with the product sold by OPs cannot be liable of deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint being devoid of merit and in the absence of any concrete evidence is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
13/01/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member