Delhi

East Delhi

CC/212/2016

DHEERAJ SAHAI - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIKABERI CORNER - Opp.Party(s)

13 Mar 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 212/16

 

Shri Dheeraj Sahai

S/o Shri Bhagwan Sahai

R/o 12A/1. Trilok Puri

Delhi – 110 091                                                           ….Complainant

Vs.    

 

1. M/s. Bikaneri Corner

18-E, School Block

Shakarpur, New Laxmi Nagar

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd.

(Formerly known as Cadbury India Limited)                                                 

Golf View Corporate towers

1^st Floor, Tower-A, Sector 42

Gold Course Road, Gurgaon – 122 002                          …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 02.05.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 13.03.2020

Judgement Passed on: 16.03.2020

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Dheeraj Sahai against         M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1) and M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant Shri Dheeraj Sahai, on 29.12.2015, purchased a gift pack of Cadbury Celebrations Rich Dry Fruit Collections of 108 gm. weight bearing batch code no. F41013B with date of packing as 15.08.2015, manufactured by M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) from M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1).  He checked the date of expiry which was 8 months from the date of packaging i.e. till 15.04.2016.  He asked M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1) (wrongly written as OP-2) for a cash memo which was declined by saying that they do not have the invoices/bill book.

          The complainant gifted the said pack to her married sister on the occasion of new year i.e. prior to the date of its expiry.  When the in-laws of married sister of the complainant opened the said pack to consume the chocolate, they were surprised to see that the chocolate in the said pack were of a sub-standard quality and were looking like a small ball of jaggery only, having small pieces of fungus on it.

          It has further been stated that brother-in-law of the complainant and his other family members got the impression that complainant had gifted them a very old pack intentionally.  They called the complainant at their house and insulted him very badly in front of his sister and other relatives.  When the complainant clarified that he had purchased the said pack only after seeing the date of manufacturing and date of expiry, only then they understood that this was the fault of the respondent company.

          He has further stated that in the last week of February, 2016, the brother-in-law of the complainant himself approached M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1) personally to record his grievance, but they refused to entertain him by saying that “Ye to company ki galti hai, hum to sirf saman bech rahe hai, aap company se baat karo”.  Then, he contacted the customer care centre of M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) and recorded his grievance about their defective product.  However, they denied to own the moral as well as legal responsibility.  M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) vide their email dated 11.03.2016 informed that certain unscrupulous parties were in possession of old gift packs and have placed them in market during the festive season after tampering their batch number etc.  The representative of the company visited the house of the complainant and his brother-in-law to hand over the pack so that they can continue with mall practice.

          It has been stated that the complainant has suffered loss in terms of money and apart from this, he has suffered mental pain, tension, agony and pressure due to the gross negligence and misconduct committed by        M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) and M/s. Bikaneri Corner    (OP-1) as the said chocolate pack was a defective piece since the date of its manufacturing.  Thus, the complainant has prayed for directions to OPs to refund the cost of chocolate pack of Rs. 250/-; compensation of           Rs. 10,00,000/- from M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1) on account of physical strain and mental agony and Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation cost.        

3.       In the written statement filed on behalf of M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1), they have denied their relationship with the complainant stating that the complainant has never purchased any such goods as stated in his complaint.  He has failed to file any proof of the sale of the goods to him.  He has also failed to file any lab report to show that they were selling fungus infected chocolate.  They have denied other facts also.

M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) have also stated that complaint was not maintainable as there was no privity of contract between the complainant and M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2).  The complainant was not a “Consumer” qua M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2).  The complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious which was filed to compel M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) to succumb to the illegal demands and claims of the complainant.  He has not attached any bill/receipt alongwith the complaint.  They were not aware as to the conditions under which the alleged chocolate was stored with M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1).  The food products have to be kept at certain temperature so that they remain fit for consumption.  They maintain highest level of quality, safety, accuracy and hygiene on all its plants and complies with all international standards prescribed for the food processing industry.  They could be held responsible for the quality of the products manufactured by it only till the products were within its control and cannot be held liable for the bad storage conditions or un-hygienic storage conditions maintained by a local seller.  They have denied other facts also.  

4.       Complainant have filed rejoinder to the WS of M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1) and M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2), wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.       In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been  stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited colour photograph of the chocolate pack (Ex.CW-1/1), colour photograph  of the actual image of the defective chocolate (Ex.CW-1/2) and copy of email dated 01.03.2016 (Ex.CW-1/3).

          In defence, M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1) have examined Shri Tarsem Chand Aggarwal, proprietor of M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1), who have also deposed on affidavit.   He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS.  He has got exhibited copy of EDMC Health Trade Department Licence (Ex.RW-1/A), photocopy of electricity bill (Ex.RW-1/B) and photocopy of invoice/bill book (Ex.RW-1/C).

          M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) have examined Shri Amit Mathur, working with M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2), who have deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS. 

6.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1) that the complainant have not filed any bill or receipt to show that he has purchased the chocolate from M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1).  He has stated that there was no relationship of consumer and seller between the complainant and M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1).

          Ld. Counsel for M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) have also taken the same stand that the complainant was not a “consumer” qua M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2).  There was no privity of contract between the complainant and M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2).

          They have also argued that no expert lab report has been filed to show that the chocolate were infected one and of sub-standard quality.

          On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for complainant have stated that the complainant was Consumer qua M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1) as well as M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2).  He has further argued that M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1) did not issue the receipt which was asked for. 

          To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the testimony of complainant, Shri Tarsem Chand Aggarwal, proprietor of M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1) and Shri Amit Mathur of M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2). 

Complainant Dheeraj Sahai in his testimony has stated that when he purchased a gift pack of Cadbury Celebrations Rich Dry Fruit Collections of 108 gm. weight bearing batch code no. F41013B with date of packing as 15.08.2015, manufactured by M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) from M/s. Bikaneri Corner  (OP-1) on 29.12.2015 and asked for cash memo from OP-1, they declined the same saying that they do not have the invoices/bill book.  When the said gift pack was opened by the in-laws of his married sister, they found that the chocolates were of a sub-standard quality.  The purchase of these chocolates from OP-1 have been denied by Shri Tarsem Chand Aggarwal, their proprietor, who has deposed on affidavit.  He has also denied the fact that they were not having bill book.  He has placed on record copy of bill book (Ex.RW-1/C).

          From the testimony of the complainant as well as Shri Tarsem Chand Aggarwal, proprietor of M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1), it comes out that the complainant Shri Dheraj Sahai have not placed any invoice/bill to show that he has purchased the Cadbury Celebrations Rich Dry Fruit Collections of 108 gm. from M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1).  His version that they have denied to have the bill book falsifies his claim in the presence of bill book (Ex. RW-1/C) which has been got exhibited in the testimony of   Shri Tarsem Chand Aggawral, proprietor of M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1).  When there is no document on record to show that the complainant have purchased the Cadbury Celebrations Rich Dry Fruit Collections of 108 gm. from M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1), there has been no relationship of the complainant as buyer with M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1).  Thus, complainant          Shri Dheeraj Sahai was not a consumer qua M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1).

          Coming to his relationship with M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2), when complainant is not a consumer qua M/s. Bikaneri Corner  (OP-1), the question of his being consumer qua M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) does not arise.

          Though, the case of the complainant fails on the ground that complainant was not consumer qua M/s. Bikaneri Corner (OP-1) as well as M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2), there is no point in examining the effect of producing no lab report.    

          In view of the above, we are of the opinion that complaint of the complainant deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost. 

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI )                                             (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

         Member                                                                          Member

 

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

President