Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/119/2014

Rajesh Gaba - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asian Lak Health Foods Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

AK Sareen

01 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.       :  119 of 07.11.2014

Date of Decision              :  01.04.2015

Rajesh Gaba S/o Roshan Lal Gaba, R/o Teacher Colony, Nawanshahr

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1.       Asian Lak Health Foods Ltd., Chandigarh Road, VPO Jandiali, District Ludhiana, Punjab, through its Proprietor/Owner/Manufacturer.

2.       Mangat Ram and Sons through its Prop./Parnter/Director, Mangat Ram, General Merchants, Dana Mandi, Nawanshahr.

                                                                    …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

MRS.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

MS.SUDHA SHARMA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY

For Complainant             :       Sh. A.K. Sareen, advocate

For Opposite Party No.1 :      Sh. J.S. Nourd, advocate

For Opposite Party No.2          :       Ex parte

 

ORDER

                             MRS.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                    Shri Rajesh Gaba has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs. only ”) praying for the following reliefs:-

i.        To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, on account of deficiency in service on their part.

 

ii.       To pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to him, on account of mental agony.

iii.      To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as legal charges.

 

2.                 In brief,  the case of the complainant is that the OP No.2 is running business of General Merchants in the name and style of Mangat Ram and sons and also deals in sale of Bisleri Mineral Water, manufactured by O.P. No.1.  The complainant had purchased one box of mineral water from O.P. No.2 for a sum of Rs.150/- on 05.11.2014 against receipt of even date.  On opening of the said box, it was found that there was fungus in one bottle, which was duly sealed. Thereafter, immediately, he again took second bottle from the said box and the same was also found full of fungus. The said bottles were purchased for his ailing father. Had he drank the said water then he might have suffered many problems and many complications could have arisen.  On 06.11.2014, the complainant approached the OP No.2 and shown him the bottles containing the fungus therein.  The OP No.2 after examining the said bottles told him that it was due to fault of the OP No.1.  It is further stated that if the O.Ps. are allowed to sell such type of bottles on the pretext that the same is mineral and distilled water, the human life is not safe at the hands of such persons.  The OPs have thus, committed deficiency in providing services to the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the claim amount, as prayed, for in the complaint.

3.                 Upon notice, the O.P. No.1 has appeared and filed written statement, taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true & material facts from the Forum; that no cause of action has been arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint and that he has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that the answering O.P. is the manufacturer of the Mineral water bottles, but has never supplied the same to O.P. No.2, who is also not its dealer. The products are being manufactured by ultra-automatic modern machines without hand touch in most hygienic condition.  Therefore, there is no question of having fungus in the products manufacture by the answering OP No.1 and the bottles purchased by the complainant may be spurious and the complainant in connivance with other competitors has filed the instant complaint to defame the answering O.P.  Rest of allegations made in the complaint have been empathically denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same.

4.                Upon notice of the complaint, the OP No.2 earlier put in appearance and filed written statement, stating therein that the said firm had purchased Bisleri Mineral water products from the distributor/company on bill and also sells the same through bill to the customers. It had informed about the matter to the company and the answering O.P. has no role in this case.

5.                After filing of written version, the O.P. No. 2 was proceeded against ex-parte on 09.01.2015, due to non-appearance.

6.        In support of complaint, the learned counsel for complainant  has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 alongwith photocopies of documents i.e. bill Ex.C-2, water bottle Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith Resolution Ex.R-1 and closed the evidence.

7.       We have heard the learned counsel for complainant & learned counsel for OP No.1 and have gone through the record, carefully.

8.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had purchased one box of Bisleri Mineral Water from OP No.2, which was manufactured by OP No.1, for a sum of Rs.150/- same is evident from invoice dated 05.11.2014 Ex.C-2.  The complainant took one bottle out of the said box and found that there was fungus in it.  Thereafter, he took another bottle from the said box even in this bottle there was fungus.  On the next date i.e. 06.11.2014, he went to the OP No.2 and had shown the said sealed bottles to OP No.2 who after seeing the same also admitted the factum of having fungus in it.  Since, the OPs have sold the defective goods i.e. Mineral water bottles to the complainant, as such, they are deficient in providing service, and they be directed to refund the amount paid by him and to pay compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

9.                In rebuttal, the learned counsel for OP No.1 vehemently argued that OP No.2 is not its dealer and it had never supplied any of its products to OP No.2.  Even otherwise, the OP No.1 manufactures its products in very hygienic condition and question of having fungus in the mineral water, manufactured by it, does not arise at all.  He further submitted that the bottle produced before this Forum may be spurious and the complaint has been filed by complainant in connivance with our competitor, just to defame the Op No.1.  The complaint is false, frivolous, baseless and the same be dismissed with costs.  

10.              From the invoice dated 05.11.2014 Ex.C-2, it is evident that the complainant had purchased one box of Bisleri Water from OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.150/-.   The stand of the complainant is that out of the said box, two bottles of mineral waters were found having fungus and to prove this fact, the complainant has tendered in evidence a sealed Bisleri Mineral Water Bottle having fungus in it, as Ex.C-3. From the sticker affixed on the said bottle (Ex.C-3), it is apparent that the same has been manufactured by OP No.1. It may be stated that on examining the said water bottle, one can easily observe even with naked eye that there are some foreign particles in it.  Further, it is immaterial, whether the OP No.2 is the dealer of the OP No.1 or not, but it is important to note that sealed bottle in question has been proved to be manufactured by O.P No.1 and it contains some foreign particles, may be fungus. That being so, the water contained in the said bottle cannot be said to be fit for consumption. We do not find any merit in the submission made by learned counsel for OP No.1 that the said bottle was not manufactured by OP No.1 and the same is spurious one, because to prove the said fact, the OP No.1 has not placed on record any cogent and convincing evidence.   Thus, we do not hesitate to conclude that the mineral water in question sold to the complainant was manufactured by O.P.No.1, which has been found to be contaminated, as such, the OP No.1, being manufacturer of the said product, is liable to compensate the complainant adequately. Since the O.P. No.2 has just sold the box of duly sealed water bottles in question to the complainant and has played no role in manufacturing thereof, therefore, it being simply an agent cannot be held liable for the defects, imperfection etc., if any, in the said bottles. Therefore, the complaint qua it is liable to be dismissed, there being no deficiency in service on its part.

 11.              In view of the above discussion, the complaint filed against O.P. No.2 is dismissed and the same is allowed against the OP No.1, who is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and a sum of  Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

12.              The arguments in this complaint were heard on 26.03.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the record room.

ANNOUNCED                                                     

Dated 01.04.2015                                                         

 

 

(Sudha Sharma)                                        (Neena Sandhu)

Member                                                     President