Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/141/2022

Vikas Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

BANSAL BROTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jun 2023

ORDER

   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No.141/22

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Vikas Gupta, S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, R/o H. No. 465, Street No. 17 B Near Sagar Studio Main Sant Nagar Market Burari, Delhi-110084	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	Bansal Brothers KH No. 135/10, Ground Floor, Block B, Old Ration Office 25, Foota Road, Sant Nagar, Delhi-110084   Kanodia Oil Mills Kh. No. 93/15, Gali No. 1, Village Mundka, South Side New Delhi-110041	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER  :

05.01.2018 13.03.2023 06.06.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer  protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had bought a Kanodia Oil 2 ltr. from Opposite Party No. 1 and paid Rs. 215/- for the same on 10.12.2017. It is alleged that instead of 2 ltr it was printed 1 ltr on the bottle. The Complainant was shocked and surprised when he saw that there was no print regarding batch number, MRP, Manufacturing month/year on the bottle. Further it is stated that date of packing was also missing on packet. The Complainant approached to Opposite Party next day i.e. 11.12.2017 but the Manager of Opposite Party No. 1 took the matter very lightly. The Complainant also approached the Opposite Party No. 2 but the Manager of Opposite Party no. 2 offered the Complainant to settle the case with negotiation. That was denied by the Complainant. The Complainant was extremely disappointed at this attitude of the Opposite Parties towards its customers. The complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. Opposite Parties contested the case and filed their common written statement. It is submitted by the Opposite Parties that the photograph of the bottle annexed with the complaint of the Complainant in which he had alleged that the price, manufacturing date etc., had not been mentioned seems to be concocted and false as in the said photograph it is visible that there was one plastic layer of transparent paper i.e. lamination, on the bottle when the photo was taken but in the bottle sealed by the Hon'ble Form there is no such plastic layer of transparent paper. Also the lamination on the bottle is readily available and the bottle could even be laminated once the lamination is removed. It is further stated by the Opposite Parties that the particulars which the Complainant is alleged to had been missing are written by way of stamp and the stamp could be rubbed by using any rubbing material. The Complainant concealed the materials facts. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2

5. To support its case Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of Shri. Tara Chand Aggarwal, authorized signatory on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 2 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Complainant and Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by Opposite Party No. 2. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased 2 ltr. oil from Opposite Party No. 1 and the manufacturer of the said product is Opposite Party No. 2. The case of the Complainant is that after purchasing the same he noticed that the said bottle of oil did not contain any batch number, MRP, manufacturing month/year. On the other hand the case of the Opposite Parties is that the allegations of the Complainant are false and the complaint had been filed only in order to extort money from the Opposite Parties.
7. The issue is that whether the batch number, MRP, manufacturing month/year was mentioned or printed on the bottle in question or not. It is not disputed that the Complainant had purchased the oil from the Opposite Party No. 1. The defense put forward by the Opposite Party No. 2 is that the said particulars which was missing on the bottle can be easily erased with some chemical. The perusal of the para no. 3 of the complaint reveals that the Complainant has specifically alleged that the above mentioned particulars were not there on the oil bottle. He has also supported the said allegations in his affidavit filed in the evidence. The perusal of the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties shows that they have simply denied the said allegation in their written statement (para 3 of the reply on merits).  It is important to note that the Opposite Parties did not state in their written statement that when the bottle was manufactured/prepared or that when the said bottle was sold to the Complainant, at that time the said particulars were present there on the said bottle. The Opposite Party No. 2 has led evidence and even in its evidence it is not stated anywhere that the bottle in question contained manufacturing date batch number, MRP etc. at the time when it was sold or manufactured/ packed. It’s defense is simply the said particulars can be easily erased by chemical. No scientific evidence has been led by the Opposite Parties to show that the said particulars had been removed from the bottle in question with the help of some chemical etc. Therefore, under these circumstances we are of the opinion that the defense put by the Opposite Parties cannot be accepted.
8. In view of the evidence led by the Complainant, the complaint is allowed. The Complainant has not led any evidence that he has suffered any loss and damage on account of the non-availability of the above mentioned particulars on the bottle in question. However, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances a compensation of Rs. 4,000/- is awarded to the Complainant along with litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-. The said amount of Rs. 9,000/- shall be paid by the Opposite Party No. 2 to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
9.  Order announced on 06.06.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)