DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA
Received by way of transfer Consumer Complaint No.277 of 2018
Date of institution: 01.05.2018
Date of Decision:18.07.2021
Rakesh Kumar Singla aged about 46 years son of Shri Sham Lal, proprietor of M/s Suwidha Centre, Opposite Tehsil Office, Lehragaga
…….Complainant
Versus
- Britannia Industries Limited, 5/1A, Hungerford Street, Kolkata 700017, through its authorized signatory
- Best Price Modern Wholesale, Wal-Mart, India Private Limited, Aeren Business Complex, Opposite Old Chungi Naka, Jalandhar, GT Road, Ludhiana through its proprietor/Managing Director/Partner
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Ranjit Singh, President.
Smt. Ranvir Kaur, Member
Present: Sh. Manish Gupta, Adv. counsel for complainant
Sh. VS Mand, Adv. For OP1
Sh. Nitin Kapila, Adv. For OP2
Order dictated by :- Shri Ranjit Singh, President
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant had purchased 10 packets of biscuits along with other grocery goods from Best Price, Jalandhar Byepass Ludhiana vide bill No.242 dated 07.06.2017 and 10 packets of biscuits purchased by the complainant included one packet of biscuits of Britannia Nutri Choice having bar code No.8. As per the regulations of Food Safety and Standard Authority of India, it is mandatory to mention the date of manufacturing and date of expiry on each and every food product. However, from the bare perusal of the said packet of biscuits, no date of manufacturing or expiry has been mentioned on the above said packet of biscuits and without its mention the complainant or anybody else cannot be aware the date of expiry of biscuits. In these circumstances, the apprehension of biscuits purchased by the complainant being expired cannot be ruled out and there is also possibility that the complainant would have consumed the expired biscuits and would have become sick due to its consumption. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops, the complainant has sought a compensation of Rs.80,000/- from the OPs along with litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-. Complaint is signed and also verified.
- In reply, the OP No.1 a number of preliminary objections are raised. It is submitted that the complainant has failed to place on record any bill or packet on record in support of the contentions made in the complaint and in the absence of any documentary proof, the contentions made by the complainant are liable to be out rightly rejected. It is further submitted that there are a lot of spurious/look alike products available in the market which do not confirm to the statutory standards and the product in question may be one of such products since the answering OP have not been able to analyze the product available at their end. Rest of allegations leveled by the complainant against the answering OP have been denied and prayed for dismissal the complaint.
4. In reply, the OP No.2 has also raised a number of preliminary objections on the ground that the answering OP is the seller of the product and not the manufacturer. Moreover, the CC purchased the product from the answering OP but till date has not raised any complaint against OP No.2. CC has not approached to OP No.2 in any manner. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal the complaint.
5. In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered various documents. On the other hand, the OPs also tendered certain documents in support of their version.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record copy of biscuits packets as Ex.C1, which shows that manufacturer/company has not mentioned any manufacturer or expiry date whereas expiry date and manufacturing date is necessary to mention each and every product. The learned counsel for the complainant also placed on record the invoice Ex.C2. The version filed by the Ops is not based on any logic and not any confidence inspiring. To rebut the claim of the complainant, the OPs have no reliable, cogent or trustworthy evidence to prove their case.
8. In view of my above discussion, it is a writ-large on the file that Ops have adopted the unfair trade practice the other customers for the sale of their various products have definitely committed unfair trade practice. From the perusal of the entire version of the Ops, there is nothing in the version which shows that even a single prize was given by the Ops No.1 & 3 to any one, which clearly proves that Ops have definitely indulged in fraudulent and malpractice against various consumers which is not permissible in law.
16. In view of the my above discussion, the present complaint stands allowed against Ops in order to curb such malpractices and such type of method used by the Ops. The Ops are burdened with punitive cost which will go to the complainant to the tune of Rs.30,000/-. Ops are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation. The OPs are further directed to comply with the above said order within the period of 30 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.
July 18, 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
(Ranvir Kaur)
RBT/ CC No.277 of 2018
Present: Sh. Manish Gupta, Adv. counsel for complainant
Sh.VS Mand, Adv. for OP No.1
Sh. Nitin Kapila, Adv. For OP No.2
Vide our separate detailed order of today, the complaint stands allowed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.
July,18 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
(Ranvir Kaur)
