THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE No. CC- 09 of 2020

 

Sri Suman Mahalanabish,

S/O- Mihir Mahalalnabish,

Rangutia, Bamutia,

P.S. Lefunga, P.O. Lefunga,

District- Tripura West. ....….................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Big Bazar(Future Retail Ltd.),

Head Office at Knowledge House,

Shyam Nagar, Jogeswari, 

Vikroli Link Road,

P.O. Jogesh East, Mumbai-400060.

 

2. The Manager,

Big Bazar,(Future Retail Ltd.),

Agartala Store, M.L. Plaza Ground Floor,

Below Rupashi Cinema Hall,

Mantri Bari Road,

Agartala- 799001.

P.O. Agartala, West Tripura. ....................Opposite Parties.

 

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Bhaskar Debroy,

  Sri Pulak Saha,

  Sri Anjan Debnath, 

  Learned Advocates.

    

For the O.P.  : Sri. Suman Bhattacharya,

  Learned Advocate.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  16.02.2022

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant's case in short is that the complainant is reputed person. On 12.03.2019 the complainant visited at Big Bazar, Agartala Store. And from there he purchased some articles  including one container of 200 gram Karmiq  Mamra almonds valued Rs.919. While the complainant intended to open the said container with the view to distribute the said almonds to some guests who visited his house he discovered that the validity period of the said almonds has been expired prior to the date of purchase. It was written on the said container that it were packed on 02.09.2018 and it was also very clearly mentioned in the body of the said container that the said product is best for use before six months from packing. Since the almonds had expired prior to the date of purchase he could not serve the same to the guests and faced embarrassed situation in front of them. The O.Ps knowing it very well that the expired product more particularly the food items can not be sold or displayed for selling and the violation of which is a very criminal offence, the O.Ps displayed those almonds products in the store with a view to make extra profit. The price of the almonds was Rs.919/-. On 18.03.2019 the complainant through his lawyer sent a Demand Notice to the O.Ps requesting to refund back the amount of Rs.919/- which the O.Ps have taken from the complainant practicing fraud and also compensate the complainant by paying Rs.2,00,000/- for causing financial loss as well as humiliation of the complainant before his guests. But the O.Ps did not pay any heed except sending one formal reply. For this negligent conduct and deficient service of the O.Ps the complainant has suffered mentally. Hence, the complainant filed this petition before this Commission for getting relief.    

 

2 After getting notice from this Commission the O.Ps have appeared and filed written statement denying all the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint petition. They have stated that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form and it is barred by limitation, principles of waiver, estoppels and other principles analogous thereto. There is no cause of action in favour of the complaint and against the O.Ps. In reply to the demand notice the O.Ps vide letter dated 22.03.2019 requested the complainant to submit the concerned product and bill copy to the customer service desk of the said Big Bazar, Agartala store for verification and needful action but the complainant did not produce the same for verification till date. The O.Ps stated that the complainant filed a false and baseless case. All products are displayed in the racks for choose & pick by the customers as per their choice and satisfaction, whereby customers can verify products displayed by themselves before purchase. O.Ps company have replenishment contracts with the vendors in respect of expire/ damage products. So there is no need to sale of expired product from the reputed Big Bazar outlets intentionally.  O.Ps follow standard operating procedures to create checks and balances and for which has deputed floor managers/staffs to check and take necessary steps timely to remove expired/damaged products from display racks, if any. Their may be inadvertent mistake/unintentional error by concerned staffs which may cause such kind of unfortunate incident but such errors are not intentional or premeditated. There is no question of cheating as alleged by the complainant falsely. The expiry date was specifically printed on the product packet which is easily noticeable to the complainant. The purchaser has also under obligation to check the details of the product before purchase. The complainant never provided any supportive documents against his complaint, O.Ps was unable to take any remedial action, thus allegation of practicing fraud with the complainant has no basis. However, the O.Ps are ready and willing to refund the produce price subject to the complainant bring  the product before this Forum along with the bill copy for verification. Hence the O.Ps have prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition filed by the complainant.

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

Complainant submitted his examination in chief on affidavit as P.W. The complainant submitted original cash memo dated 12.03.2019, original box/container and copy of advocate notice dated 18.03.2019. On identification marked as Exhibit- 1 Series. 

On the other hand, O.Ps have submitted examination in chief of one Amiya Kar, Manager, Big Bazar, Agartala. 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: - 

(i) Whether the complaint is maintainable in law?

(ii) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?

  (iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?

 

5. ARGUMENTS: - 

From the record it appears argument was fixed on 03.05.2021 and on that date complainant was absent and subsequently also on many occasions complainant remained absent. As a result date was fixed for judgment on merit.

 

6. DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-

All the points are taken up together for convenience. We have carefully gone through the complaint as well as written statement, examination in chief on affidavit submitted by both the parties. On perusal of the pleadings, we find that complainant purchased one container of 200gm KARMIQ MAMARA Almonds valued Rs.919/- from the Big Bazar Store, Agartala(O.P.) on 12.03.2019. It is also found that almonds were packed on 02.09.2018 and it mentioned in the body of the container that the said product is best for use before 6 months from packing which means on the date of purchase the validity  of the product has been expired. In the complaint petition at Para-7 it is mentioned that earlier complainant filed complaint in respect of the same fact and the complaint was numbered as CC-24 of 2019 and that complaint case was dismissed for non-prosecution. The O.Ps in their written objection stated that the case is not maintainable in its present form. It is also mentioned that the O.P. made correspondence to the complainant and requested to submit the concerned product and bill copy to the customer service desk of the said Big Bazar, Agartala store for verification and needful action. But the complainant did not produce the same for verification till date. It is further stated that all products are displayed in the racks for choose and pick up by the customers as per their choice and satisfaction an accordingly the complainant in the instant case have chosen the product and it is negligence of the complainant who has chosen the product which has already been expired. And actually it is not for sale. The staff of Big Bazar did not choose the product and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.

 

7. We have carefully gone through the examination in chief on affidavit submitted by the complainant as well as the O.P. In the examination in chief on affidavit complainant no where mentioned that earlier he has submitted a complaint on the same issue and it was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is serious suppression of fact. The complainant ought to have mentioned about the filing of the first complaint in his examination in chief but he did not mention it.

On the other hand, from the examination in chief on affidavit submitted by Amiya Kar(O.P.W.1) we find that purchaser has obligation to check the details of the products before purchase   as all the products are displayed in the racks for choosing and picking up by the customers. Moreover, O.P. was ready to refund the money but complainant did not produce the same for verification.

 

8. On overall appreciation of evidences adduced by both the parties we find that the second complaint is barred by principles of res-judicata. We also find that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Supply copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.     

 

 

Announced.

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.