Haryana

StateCommission

A/709/2017

RAMESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMBER TRADING CO. - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ MEHTA

04 Oct 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

Date of Institution: 12.06.2017

Date of final hearing: 08.08.2024

Date of pronouncement: 04.10.2024

 

First Appeal No.709 of 2017

 

Ramesh Kumar aged 58 years, S/o Sh. Bal Krishan, R/o H.No. 624/20, Bank Colony, Tehsil Hansi and District Hisar.  

  ....Appellant

Versus

1. Amber Trading Company, near New Sabji Mandi, Hansi through its Proprietor/owner.
2. Shakti Bhog Food Limited, 1101-1103, Pearls Business Park, Neta Ji Subhash Palace, Peetampura, New Delhi-110034 through MD.                                                     …..Respondents

CORAM:             Sh. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.

                             Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Argued by:-       Mr. Rohit Goswami proxy counsel for Mr. Pankaj Mehtra, counsel for appellant.

                             Mr. Sikander Bakshi, counsel for respondent No.1.

                             Respondent No. 2 already ex-parte.

 

                                                ORDER

NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:   

          Challenge in this appeal No.709 of 2017 has been invited by unsuccessful complainant, to the legality of order dated 24.04.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Hisar (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.303 of 2016, vide which his complaint has been dismissed.

2.      Complainant has alleged that: he purchased one packet weighing ‘10 kgs of Shakti Bhog Atta’ from OP No. 1 on 19.05.2016 vide bill invoice No. 446, batch No DIS1013, date of manufacturing 13.04.2016 for Rs.330/-. After opening said packet of ‘Atta’ at his house, it immediately emitted foul smell. On its checking; one dead substance, like a mouse, was detected which made impossible for 20-25 ladies, present at his house, to breath. He called OP No. 1 at spot and narrated the story. Thereupon OP No. 1 contacted Sales Manager-Vineet Dutt of OP No. 2 on mobile and informed him. Complainant also lodged complaint on email about this incident. Vineet Dutt visited at his house. He also conversed with his Senior Manager and assured him (complainant) that his grievance would be redressed. Nothing had happened thereafter. Complainant personally met OP No. 1, many times and also lodged complaint with OP No. 2 on email. On these allegations, consumer complaint to claim compensation of Rs.10.00 lacs has been filed.

3.      Upon notice, OP No.1-dealer in its written statement has admitted that complainant purchased 10 Kgs packet of Shakti Bhog Atta vide invoice No. 446, Batch No. DIS1013 on 19.05.2016 for Rs.265/-, from his shop; that when complainant called him at his house and showed him the said Atta by opening its packet, then foul smell was coming out and dead object, like mouse was found; that complainant has/had apprised him with entire facts by calling him at his house on 19.05.2016 and he apprised facts to Sales Manager-Sh. Vineet Dutt of OP No. 2 (manufacturer). He pleaded that when officials of company came at spot and he was also present with them, then on inspection of subject Atta bag; the story of incident was found genuine. He has admitted that Vineet Dutt apprised his Senior Manager and assured complainant regarding satisfaction of his grievance.

4.      OP No.2-manufacturer did not appear and was proceeded against ex-parte vide District Consumer Commission’s order dated 18.11.2016. Complainant as well as OP No. 1 to the lis led their respective evidence.

5.  
6.  

7.      Learned counsel for complainant/appellant has urged that: learned District Consumer Commission has committed gross illegality to non-suit the complainant. It is urged that reasoning given by learned District Consumer Commission to dismiss the complaint is illegal; instead the projected facts did depicted a dispute of consumer nature. Of course, since OP No.1-dealer in its defence so tendered before learned District Consumer Commission has admitted the substance of complaint, so learned counsel appearing on its behalf could not project any contrary contention, except by urging that manufacturer of Atta (M/s Shakti Bhog Food Limited-respondent No.2) was answerable, in any circumstance, and not respondent No.1 who is only a dealer.

8.  
9.  

10.    Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

11.    A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

12.    File be consigned to record room.

Date of pronouncement: 04^th October, 2024.

 

 

 

                                                S.C. Kaushik               Naresh Katyal

Member                        Judicial Member

Addl. Bench                Addl. Bench

D.K.