Haryana

Karnal

418/2011

Ramesh Kumar S/o Zile Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Easy Day - Opp.Party(s)

S.D. Sharma

21 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.     

                                                                Complaint No.418 of 2011

                                                                Date of instt.: 13.7.2011.

                                                                Date of decision:21.03.2016

 

Ramesh Kumar son of Sh. Zile Singh resident of VPO Kunjpura district Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

 

                             Versus

1.Easy Day,S C O No.96, 97, 98, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Karnal through its proprietor.

2.M/s Haldiram Manufacturing Co.Pvt.Ltd.B-1/F-12, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.

 

                                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.             

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:-      Sh.Sunil Dutt Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rahul Bali Advocate for the Opposite Party no.1.

                   Sh.Rohit Gupta Advocate for the Opposite Party no.2.

ORDER:                     

.   

                  This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that on 9.5.2011  he purchased some eatable items from Opposite Party no.1  and made payment of total amount of Rs.598.17, regarding which bill was issued by the Opposite Party no.1.When he opened  the Namkeen Packet bearing batch No.  (22)D, he was surprised to see that there was a pair of teeth in the said namkeen, due to which his family members started vomiting and became unconscious. He approached the Opposite Party no.1 alongwith the packet and had shown the same, but to no effect. The packet of namkeen was  manufactured by Opposite Party no.2, It appeared that  the officials of the Opposite Party no.2  were carelessness and negligent while packing the said packet of namkeen and on account of their negligence he suffered mental pain, agony and sufferings.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party No.1 filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complaint is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of the parties.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the packet of namkeen was manufactured by Opposite Party No.2. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 had  intimated the Opposite Party No.2 through written communication regarding the present legal matter and requested to look into the matter and verify the authenticity of the complaint. The Opposite Party No.1 is not liable for any carelessness or negligence on the part of officials of Opposite Party No.2

 

3.                The Opposite Party No.2 filed separate written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complainant has no loucs standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complaint is not maintainable; that  complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the matter which cannot be decided by this Forum in summary manner; that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and Opposite Party no.2, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable against Opposite Party no.2; that the complainant is estopped by his own acts and conduct from filing the present complaint;  and that the present complaint is an abuse of the process of law and the allegations made therein are concocted , frivolous and without any basis.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that namakeen manufactured  and prepared by Opposite Party No.2 passes through several quality checks and tests. In order to resolve the complaints raised by customers, the  no.2 has adopted systematic  approach to ensure easy and fast Redressal and for that purpose an executive has been appointed to deal with such matters.  On receipt of the  complaint, the executive contacts the dealer.  In the  present case, no complaint was ever lodged by the complainant or  Opposite Party no.1 to Opposite Part no.2.It has been denied that the complainant purchased namkeen packet bearing batch no.(22)D and found a pair of teeth in the said packet, as alleged. All other allegations made in the complaint have also been specifically denied.

 

4.                In evidence of the complainant his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 have been tendered.

 

5.                On the other hand, no evidence was led by the Opposite Parties.

 

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

7.                As per the case of the complainant, he purchased one packet of namkeen alongwith other eatables from the Opposite Party No.1 on 9.5.2011 and on opening the packet of namkeen bearing batch no. (22)D, it was found that there was a pair of teeth in the said namkeen. As per the written statement filed by the Opposite Party no.1, the Opposite Party no.2 was intimated regarding the present   legal matter  through written communication with the request to look into the matter and verify the authenticity of the complaint. However, the Opposite Party no.2 in the written statement has submitted that no complaint was ever lodged by the complainant or Opposite Party no.1 to the Opposite Party no.2.

 

8.                The learned counsel for the Opposite Party has put great thrust upon the contention that namkeen manufactured and prepared by the Opposite Party no.2 passes through several quality checks and tests and a system has also been adopted for fast redressal of the grievances of the customers. The complainant or  Opposite Party no.1 never made any complaint to the Opposite Party no.2 that a pair of teeth was found in the namkeen manufactured by Opposite Party no.2. It has further been argued that pair of teeth could be placed by the complainant after opening the  namkeen packet in order to defame and harass the Opposite Party no.2 and get illegal gains. It has lastly been argued that the complaint is false and frivolous and the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.

 

9.                It  has not been disputed by the Opposite Party no.1 that namkeen manufactured by the Opposite Party no.2 was sold by it to the complainant on  9.5.2011.It is not the case of the Opposite Parties that namkeen packet was transparent and the namkeen kept therein was visible without opening of the packet. Therefore, customer cannot be  expected to know without opening the namkeen as to whether the material kept therein was upto standard or nonstandard or carried some foreign matter instead of namkeen. Under such circumstances the complainant could not come to know without opening the packet that there was a pair of teeth in the namkeen packet.  The complainant has produced photographs of the packet and namkeen Ex.C2 toEx.C4, which show that  three artificial teeth were lyhing in the said namkeen packet. The complainant by way of affidavit Ex.CW1/A reiterated his allegations as made in the complaint. Affidavit of the complainant has gone completely unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. From the facts and circumstances of the case it stands established that namkeen manufactured and packed by the Opposite Party no.2  and purchased by the complainant from Opposite Party no.1 was having three artificial teeth  therein.

 

10.               If a person  purchases some eatable and finds some foreign matter in such eatable would certainly feel disturbed, which may affect his feelings as well as mental and health condition. He may start vomiting and  feel nausea and other problems. Therefore, the plea of the complainant  that he and his family members started vomiting and became unconscious and on account of that he suffered mental pain and sufferings cannot be disbelieved.

 

11.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party No.1 to make the payment of Rs.20, 000/- to the complainant as compensation and litigation expenses. The Opposite Party No.1  shall make the compliance of this order jointly and severally within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance

Announced
dated:21.03.2016

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

Present:-      Sh.Sunil Dutt Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rahul Bali Advocate for the Opposite Party no.1.

                   Sh.Rohit Gupta Advocate for the Opposite Party no.2.

 

                   Arguments  in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to  21.3.2016.

 

Announced
dated:27.03.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

Present:-      Sh.Sunil Dutt Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rahul Bali Advocate for the Opposite Party no.1.

                   Sh.Rohit Gupta Advocate for the Opposite Party no.2.

 

                   Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:21.03.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.