By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,
1. On 03-01-2009 complainant purchased 4 packets of 'chicken masala' weighing 100gm each, from the shop of second opposite party. First opposite party is the manufacturer. Complainant used two packets on the same day and was not satisfied with the colour and aroma of the masala. The third packet also failed to give sufficient satisfaction when it was used for preparing chicken curry. He then made enquiries and confirmed himself that the packets were original product manufactured by first opposite party. On weighing the fourth packet he found that it weighed only 57gms instead of 100gms. Complainant then contacted second opposite party and reported the matter. Second opposite party suggested to return the packet so that he can contact the manufacturer about the grievance. Complainant refused to hand over the packet. Though second opposite party assured the complainant on several occasions that he would report the issue to the manufacturer and obtain reply, second opposite party failed to do anything. When complainant approached second opposite party on 07-4-2009, he was told that the expiry date of the packet is over and so the packet cannot be replaced. Complainant alleges unfair trade practice. He prays for refund of the price of three packets and seeks replacement of the 4th packet which is deficit in quantity. He also prays for compensation and costs.
2. Notice was issued by registered post to both opposite parties. The acknowledgement card of the notice issued to first opposite party was returned to this Forum. This card bears the seal and signature of the Managing Director of first opposite party. The card shows that the notice was served and accepted by first opposite party on 17-8-2009. First opposite party remained absent and did not file any version. First opposite party was set exparte on 07-9-2009. Notice issued to second opposite party was returned as 'not known'. Complainant filed I.A.422/2009 to delete second opposite party from party array. This petition was allowed on 16-9-2009 and second opposite party stands deleted from party array.
3. The complaint was field along with the chicken masala packet which is alleged to be deficit in weight. After admitting the complaint this packet was send to the controller Legal Metrology Department, Malappuram District to submit a report regarding the actual weight of the packet. Report was received in Forum and was marked as Ext.C1. The packet was marked as MO1. Complainant filed proof affidavit also as evidence. In the affidavit complainant has reiterated the averments stated in the complaint. He alleges that the three packets used by him was of poor quality and that the fourth packet (MO1) had less weight than that was printed on the packet. As per Ext.C1 report the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Circle II, Manjeri has reported that though the net weight shown on the packet is 100gm, on verification the weight of the packet including cover is 59.25gm only. The packet contains less quantity than what is exhibited on it for information to a consumer. The case of the complainant is established and proved. Selling a product with a weight less than that printed and exhibited on the product is definitely unfair trade practice. We find opposite party guilty of unfair trade practice.
4. Complainant also contends that the contents of the three packets, purchased along with MO1 were of poor quality in it's taste and flavour. Complainant has already used all the three packets fully and nothing is placed before us to substantiate his allegation. Hence we are unable to accept this contention.
5. The unfair trade practice which is brought to light in this case is a serious one. Complainant prays for the refund of the purchase price of the three packets already used by him. We cannot allow this claim since such contention stands unproved. He is definitely entitled to refund of the price of the 4th packet (MO1) which is Rs.15/-. We consider that complainant should also be paid compensation. Seldom do consumers come forward to voice such grievances. When the monetary loss involved is negligible, consumers shy away from voicing a complaint, thinking of the time and money involved in litigation. Traders who indulge in such unfair trade practices thrive by taking advantage of this lethargy of a consumer. We are of the considered view, that compensation of Rs.5,000/- would meet the ends of justice. Such high compensation will also help to prevent prepatrators from indulging in unfair trade practices.
6. In the result, we allow the complaint and order that first opposite party shall refund to the complainant Rs.15/- (Rupees Fifteen only) towards the purchase price of MO1 (Masala packet) and also pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dated this 13th day of October, 2009.
Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/- MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/- MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Nil Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Court document marked : Ext.C1 Ext.C1 : Report of Inspector, Legal Metrology, Circle II, Manjeri dated, 10-8-2009 Material Object marked : MO1 MO1 : Chicken masala packet(100gm)
Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/- MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/- MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI | | 
