DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA

Consumer Complaint No. 194 of 26/05/2017

Decided on: 30/08/2019

Subhash Chander son of Late Sh. Devi Dayal, aged 58 years, Sardarni Quarter No.6, Sai NS NIS, Old Moti Bagh, Patiala.

                                                                                                 ...Complainant

                       Versus

1. Dabur India Limited, Head Office 8/3, Asaf Ali road, New Delhi-110002 through its Managing Director.

2. The Managing Director of Dabur India Limited, Head Office 8/3, Asaf Ali road, New Delhi-110002.                                                                                                        …Opposite Parties

                          Complaint under Section 12 of the

                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Sh. M. P. Singh Pahwa, President

Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member

Sh. B. S. Dhaliwal, Member

ARGUED BY

                        Sh. Chamandeep S Mittal Adv. counsel for the complainant.

                         Sh. R. K. Pandey Adv. counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

ORDER

M. P. SINGH PAHWA, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint is filed by complainant Subhash Chander (here-in-after referred to as complainant) U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( here-in-after referred as Act) against Dabur India Limited & Anr. (here-in-after referred as Opposite parties).

2. Briefly case of the complainant is that on 11/02/2017 the complainant has purchased some tetra packs of real mix fruit 1 ltr packs from CSD, Army Canteen at Patiala and it contains batch Number NB 60 21 1/7 manufacturing dated 12/16, manufactured by Dabur Nepal Private Limitd, Rampur Tokani Bara District Nepal imported and marketed in India by Dabur India Limited 8/3 Asif Ali Road, New Delhi 110002. It is further the case of the complainant that he is regularly purchasing real fruit juice for the family for the last so many years. When his family opened one litre tetra pack of mix fruit real juice then they found some fungus type of material in the said pack while serving in a glass and that fungus type of particular in the said real tetra pack was not looked as liquid juice or pulp of liquid juice there to. The fungus particular is not looked as the part of ingredients which is mentioned in the ingredients part of the pack printed outside the tetra pack of above the slogan best before 7 months from manufacture. It is alleged that complainant along with his son have repeatedly complained the matter with customer Care of OPs through Emails and also through telephonic calls on 4/3/2017. The OP sent confirmation message against complaint vide SR No.DI1704276386 and thereafter OPs had not paid any heed towards complainants family against his complaint. The complainant again contacted the OP for redressal of grievances. OP again sent a message of confirmation on 16/3/2017.

3. It is further case of the complainant that on 21/3/2017 one of the customer executive contacted the complainants family and the son of the complainant told or narrated the entire story to the said customer care executive. Complainant along with his son have also told the executive that wife of the complainant is regularly consuming real mix fruit juices from the last 2-3 years and now his mother is suffering from Lung Cancer and her treatment is going on at PGI Chandigarh. The complainant and his son want to know about the acidity regular IN 330, anti oxidant INS 300, Stabilizer INS 440 mentioned in the ingredients part on the tetra pack bottle and whether these ingredients can cause cancer to human body. The Customer care executive has advised the family of the complainant to stay keep quiet and said that these type of minor discrepancies are not big issue for their companies like Real Dabur India. It is alleged that the customer care executive and company has not redressed the grievances of family of the complainant. Son of the complainant has also sent the OP live video of the tetra pack and fungus type of particular lying in tetra Pack, till date the OPs are unable to response to the queries. In this way OPs have committed a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

4. By this complaint the complainant prayed for direction to the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- as mental agony, pain, harassment to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.

5. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In reply OPs raised preliminary objections that complaint is baseless and misconceived. The complainant has failed to place any material on record to substantiate that the tetra pack of real mixed fruit juice has been manufactured by the OP. It may be a spurious product. The complainant has also failed to place any material on record to substantiate that the tetra Pack of real mixed fruit juice contained fungus. Complaint has been filed with ulterior motives. The real mixed fruit juice manufactured by the OP is one of the premium products and OP is one of the market leader in the sale of branded real mixed fruit juice. The mandatory compliance under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has not been made as the mixed fruit juice has not been sent for laboratory examination. That no cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant for instituting the present complaint. The complaint is abuse of the process of law. The complainant had filed online complaint with a different name i.e. in the name of Bhupinder Singh Azad. Complainant is not a consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act. Complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties. The manufacturer & CSD are necessary parties. That the complex question of law and facts are involved which required length of evidence to be recorded which is not possible before this forum under the summary proceedings. On merits the OP has controverted all the material facts of the complaint, however, it is admitted that sales executive visited the complainant but all the other averments of the complaint in this regard are denied. After controverting all the averments, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce their evidence.

7. In support of the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA, copy of canteen smart card Ex.C-1, copy of grocery bill Ex.C-2, copy of notice to OP Ex.C-3, copies of postal receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6, copies of emails Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-10, one CD Ex.C-11, rapped cardboard box which contains two tetra packs Ex.C-12 and closed the evidence.

8. Opposite party in evidence tendered affidavit of Himanshu Bhatia as Ex.OPA, power of attorney in favour of Sh. Himanshu Bhatia, Legal Manager, Dabur India Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence of OPs.

9. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully. The parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings.

10. Firstly the complainant has to prove himself consumer of the OP. As per complainant he has purchased Tetra pack of real mix fruit from Army Canteen on 11/02/2017. To prove this fact, the complainant has relied upon the invoice Ex.C-2. The perusal of this invoice reveals that it is in the name of Gunner Bhupinder Azad. The complainant has also placed on record the copy of his Canteen Smart Card Ex.C-1 to prove that he is also authorized to purchase articles from the Army Canteen. The complainant has also having separate smart card which is GA05050746534401Z00 but the article was sold to the person having card No. 5110101006197247. The particulars mentioned in the invoice does not match with the particulars of the complainant. In these circumstances complainant is not proved the consumer of the OP.

There is another aspect of the matter also. The complainant has purchased the articles from Army Canteen but the vendor of the article has also not been impleaded as party. The Vendor has to prove the articles sold by him was purchased from the authorized distributor /stockist of the OP. Of course the complainant has mentioned the batch No.NB60211/7 manufacturing dt.12/16 but these particulars are also not mentioned in the invoice. Therefore, it is also held that complainant has failed to prove that OP sold the same articles qua which complaint has been lodged.

11. Complainant has repeatedly pleaded that he purchased the Real Fruit juice for his family for the last many years. It is further pleaded that when they opened the Tetra pack then the family of the complainant noticed some fungus type material in the pack. Complainant has himself not found the fungus articles in the Tetra pack allegedly purchased by him. The complainant has also placed on record copies of emails qua the complaint Ex.C-7, Ex.C-8, Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 but all these complaints are by one Parvesh Kumar and not by the complainant. Therefore, the net conclusion is that complainant has failed to prove his case against the OPs. As such complaint is considered without merit and same stands dismissed.

12. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 30/08/2019

                    B. S. Dhaliwal                Inderjeet Kaur                            M. P. S. Pahwa

                           Member                        Member                                      President