Haryana

Jind

CC/15/99

Ramkesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Brill Internatinal Bhagwati Bikaner Misthan Bhandar - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Sorav Sharma

18 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 91 of 2015
                            Date of institution:-13.7.2015
                            Date of decision:- 23.5.2016
Ramkesh s/o Sh. Suraj Bhan r/o village Roopgarh, District Jind.

                                       ...Complainant.
Versus
Brill International 506 Katra Ishwar Bhawan Khari Baoli, Delhi0110006 through its Director/Incharge.
Bhagwati Bikaner Misthan Bhandar, Gohana road, Jind through its Proprietor.
                                                              …Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.    
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
            
Present:-    Sh. Sorav Sharma Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. Abhishek Singla, Adv.for opposite party No.2. 
            Opposite party No.1 already ex-parte. 
            
Order:-
        In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased  two packets (each 250 gram) of Brill Click roasted and salted Cashews batch No. BCK-04 package date April, 2015  for a sum of Rs.380/- vide receipt No.769 dated 7.5.2015 
            Ramkesh Vs. Brill International etc.
                …2…            
from opposite party No.2, which is manufactured by opposite party No.1. It is alleged that when he opened one packet of Cashew then found  that the Cashews are of inferior qualities and insects were found inside the packet. The date of package was April, 2015 but the quality was very inferior within one month from the date of packaging. The complainant had eaten some Cashew and due to inferior quality of Cashew he felt uneasiness and fell ill. Thereafter, the complainant approached with opposite party No.2 and made complaint about inferior quality of Cashew. The opposite party No.2 told the complainant to approach the opposite party No.1, who is manufacture of the above said Cashew and is responsible for the same. The complainant served a legal notice dated 15.5.2015 for demanding compensation to the opposite parties but all in vain. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay  a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental pains, agonies and harassment to the complainant. 
2.    Opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 5.10.2015.
3.    Pursuant to notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared and filed the written reply agitating that the complainant has got no cause of action  to file the present complaint and this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the  complaint. On merits, it is contended that  the answering opposite party has received the sealed packets from opposite party No.1 and sold the same to the complainant. It is alleged that opposite 
            Ramkesh Vs. Brill International etc.
                …3…    
party No.1 is manufacturing the above said Cashew and he is responsible for the same and the answering opposite party is not at any fault. All the other allegations have been denied by the answering  opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost  is prayed for.  
4.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of cash memo Ex. C-2, copy of  legal notice dated 15.5.2015 Ex. C-3 and postal receipt Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party No.2 has produced  the affidavit of Sh. Laxman Proprietor Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence. 
5.    We have heard Ld. counsel for  both the parties and also perused the record placed on file . Ld. counsel for complainant has relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble National Commission titled as Rama Shankar Yadav Vs. J.P. Associate Ltd. 1(2012) CPJ 110 (NC) and Uttarakhand State Commission titled as Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Naithani and another III(2011) CPJ 68. The above authorities are not identical to the facts of the case. The man contention of the complainant that he has purchased two packet each 250 grams Brill Click roasted and salted Cashews dated 7.5.2015 from opposite party No.2 and paid Rs.380-/ in cash but when he opened the one packet of Cashews then he found the Cashews in inferior quality and insect has been found in side the packet. Six months period of quality assurance was printed on the packet from the date of the packing. He further alleged that he has eaten some Cashews and felt 
            Ramkesh Vs. Brill International etc.
                …4…    
uneasiness and fell ill. Complainant filed the complaint on 13.7.2015 within a period of six months as assured period was printed on the packet. We have perused the file, the complainant has not filed any application under Section 13 (1 ) (c ) for proper analysis of goods or test of goods  at the time of filing the complaint nor he requested to the Forum for opening the packet and give the observation whether the Cashews having the insects in the packet. Without adopting the  above said procedure by the complainant, this Forum cannot come on this conclusion whether the Cashews are unfit for human consumption or not. Even then complainant has not filed any medical evidence regarding after eating the cashews he  fell ill and taken the treatment. At the time of arguments the complainant produced both the packets, one is open and another is sealed. We have opened the sealed packet in the presence of counsel for both parties, we  found that there are no insects inside in the packet. Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove his case .Hence, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 23.5.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

                 Ramkesh Vs. Brill International etc.
                                
Present:-    Sh. Sorav Sharma Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. Abhishek Singla, Adv.for opposite party No.2. 
            Opposite party No.1 already ex-parte. 

                Remaining arguments heard.  To come up on  23.5.2016 for orders.

                                       President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           18.5.2016

Present:-    Sh. Sorav Sharma Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. Abhishek Singla, Adv.for opposite party No.2. 
            Opposite party No.1 already ex-parte. 

        Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 
                                                                                             President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           23.5.2016