BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.475 of 2015

Date of Instt. 03.11.2015

Date of Decision : 19.07.2016

Ravinder Kumar son of Ramesh Mittal R/o 3, Ram Sharnam Colony, Basti Danishmandan, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.Anmol Stationery & General Store & Gift Centre, 11-B, Near Vaishno Mandir, Model House, Jalandhar.

2.Modi Natural Limited, An ICO9001/2008 HACCP Certified Co., Bilaspur Road, Pilibhit (UP)-26200.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.NP Singh Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Opposite party No.2 in person.

Opposite party No.1 exparte.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that complainant purchased a bottle of Oleev Active Cooking Oil having batch No.PA-0034 from OP vide invoice/bill No.74 dated 7.8.2015 for a sum of Rs.160/-. The said product was manufactured by OP No.2. Complainant noticed that the said oil was not fit for human consumption as it has already expired date of use. The manufacturing date given on the said bottle is 22.2.2014 and it can be used within 9 months from the date of manufacturing, meaning thereby, it can be safely used upto 22.11.2014. But OP No.1 fully knowing that the cooking oil bottle which he had sold to the complainant, has already expired and in order to cover the expiry date, OP No.1 put sticker of his departmental store i.e. Anmol Stationery and General Store and Gift Centre on that portion where manufacturing date of the product was written. Thereby, OP concealed the material fact to sell the expired product. Complainant submitted that had the family of the complainant consumed the said oil, the health of complainant and his family was at high risk. Complainant approached the OPs in this regard but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Then complainant served legal notice dated 17.8.2015 upon the OPs through registered post. This matter was also published in the “Dainik Jagran” vernacular dated 1.9.2015. Even then OPs did not submit any reply to the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that OP No.2 always provide all the statutory information including expiry date of its product to keep fully inform the consumer while purchasing/using their products. Even on the product in question, the manufacturing date of product and expiry date are mentioned. So, there is no malafide intention or attempt to cheat any customer, on the part of the OP No.2 about the disputed produced. The complainant has not purchased the disputed product from OP No.2. So, OP No.2 is not liable for any proceedings or action under the Consumer Protection Act. OP No.2 further submitted that even though there is not fault of OP No.2, however, in good faith, the complainant was given replacement of disputed product. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2.

3. Notice of this complaint was given to the OP No.1 but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2/A alongwith copy of document Ex.OP2/1 and closed evidence.

6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased a bottle of Oleev Active Cooking Oil having batch No.PA-0034 from OP vide invoice/bill No.74 dated 7.8.2015 Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.160/-. The said product was manufactured by OP No.2. Complainant noticed that the said oil was not fit for human consumption as it has already expired its date of use. The manufacturing date given on the said bottle is 22.2.2014 and it can be used within 9 months from the date of manufacturing. Meaning thereby, it can be safely used upto 22.11.2014. But the OP No.1 fully knowing that the cooking oil bottle which he had sold to the complainant has already expired and in order to cover the expiry date, OP No.1 put sticker of his departmental store i.e. Anmol Departmental Store on that portion where manufacturing date of the product was written. Thereby, OP No.1 concealed the material fact to sell the expired product. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that had the family of the complainant consumed the said oil, the health of complainant and his family was at high risk. Complainant approached the OPs in this regard but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Then complainant served legal notice dated 17.8.2015 Ex.C2 upon the OPs through registered post, postal receipt of which are Ex.C3. This matter was also published in the “Dainik Jagran” vernacular dated 1.9.2015. Even the OPs did not submit any reply to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

8. Whereas the case of the OP No.2 is that OP No.2 always provide all the statutory information including expiry date of its product to keep fully informed the consumer while purchasing/using their products. Even on the product in question, photocopy of which is Ex.C4, the manufacturing date of product and expiry date are mentioned. So, there is no malafide intention or attempt to cheat on the part of the OP No.2 about the disputed produced. The complainant has not purchased the disputed product from OP No.2. So, OP No.2 is not liable for any proceedings or action under the Consumer Protection Act. OP No.2 further submitted that even though there is not fault of OP No.2, however, in good faith, the complainant was given replacement of disputed product. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2 qua the complainant.

9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased a bottle of Oleev Active Cooking Oil manufactured by OP No.2, from OP No.1 vide invoice/bill No.74 dated 7.8.2014 Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.160/- having batch No.PA-0034. The date of product of this bottle is written as 22.2.2014. As per instructions of OP No.2, this product can be used safely within 9 months from the date of manufacturer i.e. upto 22.11.2014 which fully prove that when this bottle of Oleev Active Cooking Oil, photocopy of which is Ex.C4, was sold by OP No.1 to the complainant on 7.8.2015, its date of use has already expired on 22.11.2014. To conceal all these facts, OP No.1 intentionally covered the portion regarding instruction of its period of use, by sticking their own sticker of departmental store i.e. Anmol Departmental Store, 11-B, near Vaishno Mandir, Model House, Jalandhar on that portion of the bottle in order to sell the expired product to the complainant. The complainant approached OP No.1 in this regard but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant also served legal notice dated 17.8.2015 Ex.C2 upon the OPs through registered post, postal receipts of which are Ex.C3 and also got published these facts in the local vernacular newspaper “Dainik Jagran” dated 1.9.2015, copy of which is Ex.C5 but inspite of that OP No.1 did not sent any reply nor furnished any explanation to the complainant. Even the notice of this complaint was duly served upon OP No.1 but they did not turn-up to contest the complaint or to explain the position, nor any person from OP No.1 dared to appear in the Forum to file affidavit to rebut the evidence produced on record by the complainant. So, entire evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged qua OP No.1. All this fully proves that OP No.1 in order to sell expired product Ex.C4 bottle of Oleev Active Cooking Oil, to the complainant, placed/pasted sticker of his departmental store i.e. Anmol Departmental Store, Jalandhar, on the portion where instructions regarding its expiry date are mentioned by the manufacturer i.e. OP No.2 that it can be used best before 9 months from the date of product. The date of product of this bottle is mentioned as 22.2.2014. So, this product could be used/fit for human consumption upto 22.11.2014 but OP No.2 fully knowing that this product had already expired, its date of use on 22.11.2014, sold this product to the complainant on 7.8.2015 vide bill No.74 Ex.C1, thereby, indulging in unfair trade practice, in order to cheat the complainant that is why OP No.1 did not turn-up to put forwarded any explanation and to contest the complaint nor any person from OP No.1 dared to file affidavit to rebut the case/evidence of the complainant. Therefore, OP No.1 is guilty of deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice qua the complainant.

10. As regards OP No.2 manufacturer, they have clearly mentioned the date of product, batch number and expiry date of the product i.e. best use within 9 months from the date of product. So, OP No.2 is not guilty of any deficiency of service qua the complainant.

11. Consequently, we allow this complaint against OP No.1 and OP No.1 is directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. OP No.1 is also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

19.07.2016 Member President