Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/252/2019

S. Mahendran - Complainant(s)

Versus

Big Bazzar Rep by Authorized Parson Express Avenue shopping Mall - Opp.Party(s)

M/s K. Muthiramalingam

08 Feb 2023

ORDER

                                               Date of Complaint Filed : 10.09.2019

                                               Date of Reservation         : 25.01.2023

                                               Date of Order                   : 08.02.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                :  MEMBER  I 

                      THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,          : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.252/2019

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

S.Mahendran,

S/o Sambandham,

No.2, Jaya Nagar,

Thiruvallur-602 001.                                                                                                                             ... Complainant                

..Vs..

 

Big Bazaar,

Rep by its Authorized Person,

Express Avenue Shopping Mall,

No.2, Club House road,

Near Clock Tower,

Express Estate, Royapettah,

Chennai 600 014.                                                                                                                                        ...  Opposite Party

                                                                                                                    ******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. K. Muthuramalingam

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : Party in Person

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-II, Thiru. S. Nandagopalan, B.Sc., MBA.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony, and also give 1 Gold Supreme Atta weighing 1 Kg to the Complainant along with cost of this complaint.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant submitted that on 06.09.2018 he visited one of the Big Bazaar outlets situated in the Express Avenue Shopping Mall and had purchased many house hold requirements including foodstuffs and essential commodities. The Complainant was also provided with a bill for the same. One amongst his purchase was 1 kg of Gold Supreme Atta. After reaching home and arranging the things purchased, the Complainant found that the said 1kg of Gold Supreme Atta was expired. He was shocked and surprised as to how such a big establishments are selling the products especially edible products whose expiry date are over. After noticing it, he again went to the store located at Express Avenue Shopping Mall on 07.09.2018 and enquired about the issue. But, to his dismay the staff did not respond properly and they made the Complainant wait for longer time at the store for more than 2 hours. After waiting for a long time, the Store Manager Mr.Arul came out finally after a lot of confusion and commotion had requested the Complainant to not make it a big issue as it is big establishment. He also told the Complainant that the said expired Atta will not be exchanged and threatened the Complainant that the owner of the Big Bazaar is a politically influenced person.  He immediately dialed 100 seeking the help of police aid and the police personnel immediately arrived at the shop and advised the Complainant not to raise any dispute with the management since they are big shot and politically an influenced person. Being completely aggrieved by the act of the store Manager, had filed a police complaint against Mr. Anand, Mr.Arul and 5 other persons in the Anna Salai Police Station and has obtained a CSR. No. 615/2018 on 07.09.2018,  against the said persons. The Complainant submitted that he also sent a complaint on 10.09.2018 to the Food cell, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015 along with the expired 1 KG of Gold Supreme Atta. But the food cell neither took any action nor have sent any reply to the Complainant. After filing the complaint, the said persons have not made any issue to settle the dispute amicably and are non-Cooperative. The Complainant had been experiencing mental agony, strains and stresses due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The notice of the Complainant dated 02.08.2019 was received and acknowledged by the Opposite Party on 03.08.2019. But no reply was sent or caused to be sent by the Opposite Party. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

 The Opposite Party submitted that it has not sold the expired "1 KG of Gold Supreme Atta" to the Complainant as alleged by the Complainant. The Opposite Party submitted  that the said product was not sold by the Opposite Party to the Complainant on 06.09.2018 as in the store there were/are no expiry products available. The Opposite Party do not sell any expired food items including the said Product as alleged by the Complainant. The Opposite Party has process for managing near expiry product to prevent the customer/s to purchase from the 'selling racks' in the store. The Opposite Party submitted that it maintains regular tracker and have process management for all the products with their expiry date, so that at the time of near expiry of the products the Opposite Party could remove them from the 'selling racks' and keep separately in packed carton box at dedicated area in backroom, from where the customer could not pick those products easily. The Complainant had approached the Opposite Party store raising issue that the Opposite Party has sold the expired product for which officials of the Opposite Party post internal enquiry and checking from the tracker of the said product, have explained to the Complainant that there were no expiry product available and refused the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party has sold the expired product. Despite, explanation with supporting evidence, the Complainant was threatening  the officials of the Opposite Party and was creating nuisance in the store. The Complainant was demanding to pay him Rs. 5,00,000/- and threatened to cause damage to the reputation of the Opposite Party if the said amount is not paid. The Complainant in order to harass the Opposite Party had also approached Anna Salai Police Station and the officials of the Opposite Party were called by the Police for enquiry and during enquiry, the officials of the Opposite Party explained about the incident and made the Police to understand the case. The Complainant did not stopped there and raised complaint before the Food Safety Department. Based on the complaint the Officials of the Foods Safety Department had visited the store of the Opposite Party and confirmed non availability of any expired product. The Complainant has also made complaint before the Adjudication Officer and District Revenue Officer. The Opposite Party submit that the Complainant is harassing the Opposite Party without there being any default from the Opposite Party by approaching various statutory authorities and this Forum concealing the real facts of the case to gain unlawfully and to cause damage including damage of reputation, good will apart from financial loss to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party had not been given any opportunity by the Complainant to examine said product, which the Complainant is saying expired so that the Opposite Party post examine could explain with supporting evidence that the Opposite Party has not sold the expired product. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint. 

4. The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as  Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7. The Opposite Party submitted its Written Version. Inspite of sufficient opportunities given to the Opposite Party, Proof Affidavit of the Opposite Party was closed and no document was marked on its side.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

        Upon perusal of Ex.A1, it is seen that the Complainant on 06.09.2018 had purchased 1 Kg of Gold Supreme Atta among other food items         from the Opposite Party. The Complainant submitted that he found that the said 1 Kg of Gold Supreme Atta  was sold after the  expiry date. When the Complainant enquired the Opposite Party on 07.09.2018 about the sale of expired product, the Opposite Party had refused to exchange the product and threatened the Complainant with dire consequence if he raise the issue. From Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-3 it is seen that the Complainant had lodged a Police complaint  to take action against the Opposite Party for selling expired food products. The Complainant had also given a complaint to the Tamilnadu Food Safety and Drug administration, Saidapet, Chennai as per Ex.A-4. However according to the Complainant, the Food Cell had not taken any action on his complaint. As per Ex.A-6 dated 02.08.2019 the Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party and evoked no response even after acknowledging the same as seen in Ex.A-7.

        The Opposite Party has averred that the 1 Kg of Gold Supreme Atta   with expired date was not sold by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. Further contended that they maintain regular tracker and have process management for all the products with their expiry date so that at the near expiry of the products they would be removed and kept separately. After enquiry and checking from the tracker of the said product they had explained the Complainant that no such product was sold and also contended that Complainant is frequently filing complaints before various Forums.

        From Ex.A-5 it is evident that the Golden Harvest Supreme Atta, was packed on 19.05.2018 with Batch No.PHF-1905 to be used within 3 months from the date of packing. Hence the product ought to have been sold within 3 months from 19.05.2018, i.e., by 18.08.2018. However the product was sold by the Opposite Party to the Complainant on 06.09.2018 as evident from Ex.A-1. Immediately the Complainant had also made complaints to the Police and Food and Safety Department as per Ex.A-2 to Ex.A-4. The Opposite Party had not filed proof Affidavit and documents to show that the Golden Harvest Supreme Atta packed on 19.05.2018 containing Batch No.PHF-1905 was not sold by them after having averred in the Written version that they had made enquiry and checked from the tracker of the said product. The Opposite Party was negligently selling food products after its expiry date which would cause health risks.

        In view of the aforesaid discussions, we hold that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency of service by selling food product after the date of expiry, to the Complainant. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the  Complainant.

 

Point No.2 and 3:

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party is liable to give 1 kg Gold Supreme Atta to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, strain and stress caused to the Complainant along with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant. Accordingly Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered. 

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to give 1 kg Golden Harvest  Supreme Atta to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) towards compensation for the mental agony, strain and stress caused to the Complainant along with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant, within 8 weeks  from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the above said amount of Rs.20,000/- shall carry interest @9% p.a from the date of the  receipt of this order to till the date of realization.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 8^th of February 2023.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN           T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                        B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

  List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	06.09.2018	Bill showing the purchase of 1 Kg of Gold Supreme Atta
Ex.A2	07.09.2018	Police complaint lodged by the Complainant with Anna Salai Police Station against the Opposite Party
Ex.A3	07.09.2018	CSR No.615 of 2018
Ex.A4	10.09.2018	Complaint lodged with the Food cell, Saidapet, Chennai-15
Ex.A5	-	Photo showing the atta handed over to the Foodcell Officer
Ex.A6	02.08.2019	Notice issued by the Complainant’s Advocate to the Opposite Party
Ex.A7	06.08.2019	Acknowledgement card

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT