SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

     Complainant has filed this complaint for getting  an order directing  the  opposite party No.1 to  refund Rs.5150/- the price of the  rice supplied  by him and also to pay Rs.4,00,000/-  as  compensation  for the mental agony distress suffered by the complainant and his family together with cost of the proceedings.

   Brief facts of the case are that  the   Complainant had purchased 50kg of  branded  MP715 Biriyani Rice  for Rs.5150/- from  1^st OP shop, manufactured by 3^rd OP,  for the house warming function  of his house. After opening the sack the cook  was surprised and told that  the rice  is  a duplicate one and of low quality and the rice had different smell and colour from its original rice and immediately informed the matter to 2^nd OP.  The Complainant contacted the 1^st OP, but he  was not  ready to take back  the rice, but the 1^st OP told that  the rice  once sold will not be taken back and he also said that the rice is original.  So the complainant has no other option  but to purchase another sack of same brand biriyani rice from another shop for Rs.4950/- for 50kg sack.  In the very auspicious occasion the act of the 1^st OP got  mental depression  to the complainant. Due to the  supply of  duplicate  rice by the 1^st OP, the complainant could not  serve  biriyani to all the invitees.  The act of 1^st OP is  unfair trade practice.  Hence the complaint

      After receiving notices, OPs 1 to 3  entered appearance and filed version stating their contentions.  1^st OP submitted that  they have never sold  or supplied  any duplicate rice or any other food article of low quality in the premises to any customers including  complainant till today. 1^st OP used to  purchase high quality  MP brand ghee rice from the wholesale shop of Kannur.1^st OP never purchased MP Brand  ghee rice from 2^nd OP and the sack bearing ghee rice will be sealed and labeled by the  manufacture as per the rules and regulations of  Food Safety Act .  The cook has stated by the  complainant  in the complaint is not a authorized person to decide whether the article of the food is original or duplicate. 1^st OP is not  bound to refund  the price  of  rice because he never supplied duplicate ghee rice.   Hence prayed  for dismissal of the complaint. 

   OPs 2&3  jointly filed version stating that the 3^rd OP is the manufacturer of MP715 Biriyani rice for the last several decades.  The 2^nd OP is the  authorized distributor of  state of Kerala under 3^rd OP.  3^rd OP is  manufacturing good quality  rice  and supplying the same throughout India, no complaints were raised till  this date with regarding the quality of the product.  It is submitted that the 2^nd OP is distributing  the above rice within Kerala for and on behalf of 3^rd OP.  The 1^st OP  have never become an authorized seller of said brand and the 2^nd OP never distributed the said brand rice to the 1^st OP.  The disputed sack of rice neither manufactured by 3^rd OP and nor distributed by 2^nd OP It is submitted that  the 1^st OP never make order to the 3^rd OP for supplying the MP715 biriyani rice neither through  2^nd OP nor directly. No payment received by OPs 2&3 from  1^st OP since they did not supply any product to the 1^st OP. It is further submitted that the cook named Ranjith(PW2) made a call over mobile phone to the 2^nd OP stating some suspicion over the quality and manufacturing of the  disputed sack of rice available n the complainant’s residence. After receiving the call with  an hour the representative of the 3^rd OP( 2^nd OP)  reached the house of the complainant and inspected the rice and confirmed that the same is not  original.   The complainant did not avail any service from OPs 2&3.  There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs 2&3 and  the complainant is not entitled to any compensation  from them. Hence prayed for the  dismissal of the  complaint.

   At the evidence stage, complainant has filed chief affidavit and documents.  Examined as PW1 , marked Exts.A1&A2 and MOs 1 & 2.  One more witness, the cook of complainant in the disputed function also was examined as PW2.  None of the OPs cross-examined  PW2.  After that the learned counsel of  complainant submitted argument note.

    Complainant’s case is that the MP715 Biriyani Rice manufactured by 3^rd OP           purchased by the complainant from  1^st OP for the house warming function  of his house was a duplicate one and of low quality.  The rice had different smell and colour from its original rice.  Complainant submit that  though the  grievance was informed to 1^st OP, he has not taken any positive steps to redress the grievance of the complainant.

   From the facts of this case, the main allegation of the complainant is against 1^st OP.  Complainant himself has given evidence.  1^st OP has not cross-examined PW1, to discard the allegations of  the complainant.  3^rd OP submitted that they are the manufacturer of MP715 Biriyani Rice for the last several  decades.  Further submits  that 3^rd OP is manufacturing good quality rice.  3^rd OP submits that usually there is covering stitch on the top of the sack.  The disputed sack is missing the same, the rice manufactured and packed by the 3^rd OP have plastic cover inside the sack, the disputed sack, the same is  missing,  The product manufactured by 3^rd OP will be sold within 2 to 3 months in the market, the disputed sack has more than 9 months old, which will never  happens.  The quality of rice tested by the representative showed less quality compared to rice manufactured by 3^rd OP.

   3^rd OP submitted that  2^nd OP never distributed  above said brand rice to the 1^st OP.  The disputed sack of rice neither manufactured by 3^rd OP and nor distributed by 2^nd OP.  Further submitted that the cook named Ranjith(PW2) made a call over mobile phone to the 2^nd OP stating some suspicion over the quality and manufacturing of the  disputed sack of rice available n the complainant’s residence. After receiving the call with  an hour the representative of the 3^rd OP( 2^nd OP)  reached the house of the complainant and inspected the rice and confirmed that the same is not  original.

   PWs 1&2 were not cross-examined by 1^st OP.  Moreover 1^st OP did not adduce any evidence also.  Thus 1^st OP has not proved his contentions.  So the allegations against 1^st OP became unchallenged.  Hence we are constrained to believe the averment of complainant against 1^st OP.Through  Ext.A1 complainant proved purchase of 50kg MP rice for Rs.5150/- from 1^st OP.  Through Ext.A2 complainant proved purchase of 50kg MP 715 Rice from another stores worth Rs.4950/-.

   Here the complainant is claiming refund of the price of the rice from 1^st OP.  From the evidence we are of the view that MO2 does not have the trade mark etc as stated by OPs 2&3 in their version.  So we are of the view that 1^st OP sold duplicate rice of low quality.  So there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of 1^st OP.  Since the complainant failed to prove the facts that MO1 rice was manufactured by 3^rd OP, supplied by 2^nd OP, to 1^st OP, we exonerate OPs 2&3 from the liability.

   In the result , complaint is allowed in part.  1^st Opposite party is directed to refund Rs.5150/- the price of the rice in dispute together with Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards cost of the proceedings of the case.  1^st opposite party shall comply the order within one  month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.  Failing which Rs.5150/- +Rs.50,000/- will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization.   Complainant can execute the  order as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts.

A1- photocopy of  Cash bill   

A2- Bill

MO1- ghee rice(50 Kg)

MO2- Empty sack

PW1- Jijesh.N- complainant

PW2- Ranjith.K- witness of  complainant

Sd/                                                   Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR