| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 318 of 16.8.2017 Decided on: 21.1.2021 Umesh Kumar Ghai s/o Sh.Mohan Chand R/o H.No.52, Ajit Nagar, Near Punjab Rice Mill, Patiala Road, Bhawanigarh. …………...Complainant Versus - Big Bazar (Future Retail Ltd.) Omaxe Mall, Mall Road, Patiala through its Manager.
- Big Bazar Future Retail Office, Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar off Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari(East),Mumbai-400060 through its Director.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Umesh Kumar Ghai, complainant in person Sh.Gurpreet Singh, counsel for OPs. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Umesh Kumar Ghai (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Big Bazar (Future Retail Ltd.) and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter referred to as the Act)
- Briefly the case of the complainant is that on 12.6.2017 he purchased total four items from the store of OP No.1 vide invoice No.1242946 out of which one was GH Cashew 4P 200 G for Rs.240/- on which the packing date was mentioned as 9.1.2017.On the packet it was also mentioned “Best Before Four Months from Packaging” i.e. the said product was expired on 9.5.2017.
- It is averred that by selling expired products, the OPs are playing with the health and life of the general public for making illegal money and are thus liable to pay compensation. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for doing malpractice, Rs.1,00,000/- on account of harassment, mental tension and agony, ,Rs.1,75,000/- on account of punitive damages ,Rs.15000/- as costs of litigation alongwith interest @18% per annum and also to close the store of the OPs.
- Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In the preliminary objections at the outset the OPs denied all the allegations, facts and averments as stated in the complaint. They further raised the objections that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant; that the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious besides being devoid of any merits and has been filed with a view to malign the credential & reputation of the OPs with dishonest intentions. It is submitted that the OPs is big shopping outlet where the prices of goods are feeded in computer system which are scanned at the time of billing vide their bar code and if any mistake occurs due to some technical problem, the same is corrected when it comes to the knowledge of the OPs.
- On merits, it is submitted that the complainant has not provided legible pictures and has denied the factum of sale of alleged expired product. It is further averred that the complaint has been filed with a view to malign the credential & reputation of the OPs. There is no malpractice or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
- In evidence the complainant tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavit of Amit Kumar Jha, Ex.OPA and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the complainant present in person, ld. counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that OP has supplied expired items to him. The ld. counsel further argued that on 12.6.2017 he purchased four items from the store of OP No.1 and one was GH Cashew nuts for Rs.240/-.The ld. counsel further argued that the packaging date was 9.1.2017 and also it is mentioned on the packet “Best Before Four Months from Packaging”. The ld. counsel further argued that the OPs are playing with the health and life of the consumers so the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OPs has argued that the complainant has filed the complaint on the basis of distorted and twisted facts. The ld. counsel further argued that the OP is big shopping outlet where the prices of goods are feeded in computer system which are scanned at the time of billing. The ld. counsel further argued that no expired thing was supplied.So the complaint be dismissed.
- To prove this case the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint. Ex.C1 is the bill dated 12.6.2017 vide which the complainant purchased three items and one was GH Cashew for Rs.240/-.There are photographs Exs.C1 to C4 of the cashew of the item purchased and other cashew nuts. They were packed on 9.1.2017.It was mentioned “Best before four months from packaging”. As it was purchased on 12.6.2017 and was packed on 9.1.2017 so it was sold after five months of the packaging. So it is clear that manufacturing date is 9th January /2017 .It was sold in the month of Junw,2017 i.e. after a period of four months. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
- So due to our above discussion the complaint stands partly allowed and the OPs are directed to refund Rs.240/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from 12.6.2017 till payment and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.
Compliance of the order be made by theOPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. ANNOUNCED DATED:21.1.2021 Y.S.Matta Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member Member President | |
