DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 601
Instituted on: 25.11.2019
Decided on: 01.03.2021
Mehul Arora son of Sh. Gulshan Arora, Stadium Road, Railway Phatak, Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.
…Complainant.
Versus
Easyday, Future Retail Limited, Shop No.636/1, Opp. ICICI Bank, Aggarsain Chowk, Sunam, District Sangrur 148028.
…Opposite party
For the complainant: : Shri Dhiraj Jindal, Adv.
For the OP : Shri Gagandeep Bhagria, Adv.
Quorum: Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
Shri V.K.Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
FACTS
1 Complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that he had purchased some household goods including Mc.Vities Marie (Biscuits) from the OP vide bill dated 31.3.2019 and paid a total sum of Rs.20/-. Further it is averred in the complaint that the complainant had purchased it for personal consumption and before consumption it was noticed by the complainant that the product was having its manufacturing date i.e. 24.3.2018 and was to be used by 23.3.2019, which clearly shows that the opposite party is selling the expiry date articles to the general public, which is totally illegal and amounts to unfair trade practice. It is further averred that if the complainant used the said expiry date article, then it would have caused irreparable loss to the health of the complainant and his family. The complainant immediately brought the matter to the notice of the OP and requested to refund back the amount of Rs.20/- so charged by the OP for the sale of expiry product, but the OP refused to refund back the amount. Further case of the complainant is that the OP is openly selling the expiry date articles in the market throughout India on their retail outlets, which is a danger to the consumer and in this way the Op is earning crore of rupees. It is further averred that from the above it is clear that the OP is selling the expiry goods to the public and complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.20/- charged by it and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
WRITTEN VERSION
2. In reply filed by the OP, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action, that the complaint is not maintainable and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. On merits, it is denied by the OP that the complainant had purchased the product for his personal use. It has been denied that before consumption it was noticed by the complainant that the product was of best before date, as the manufacturing date of the said article is 24.3.2018 and best before 12 months from manufacturing i.e. 23.3.2019, which clearly show that the OP is selling the best before date article, then it would cause the irreparable loss to the health of the complainant and his family. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.
EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
3. The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased some household goods including biscuits from the OP on 31.3.2019 and paid a total amount of Rs.20/- as is evident from the copy of bill on record Ex.C-2. Further it is argued that before consumption it was noticed by the complainant that the product was of expiry date as the manufacturing date of the said article is 24.3.2018 and expiry date of article was 23.3.2019, which clearly shows that the opposite party is selling the expiry date articles to the general public, which is totally illegal and amounts to unfair trade practice. It is further argued that if the complainant used the said expiry date article, then it would have caused irreparable loss to the health of the complainant and his family. It is further argued that the complainant immediately brought the matter to the notice of the OP and requested to refund back the amount of Rs.20/- so charged by the OP for the sale of expiry product, but the OP refused to refund back the amount as such the complainant filed the present complaint to get relief from the court.
6. Ex.C-3 is the photostat copy of the wrapper of the product in question, which has a mention of manufacture and expiry date. It is beyond any doubt that the complainant has clearly proved on record that the OP has sold the expiry product to the complainant. This fact is further supported by the affidavit of the complainant which is on record as Ex.C-1. The learned counsel for the OP has also produced the affidavit of Shri Kuldeep Singh Ex.OP1 and has deposed as per the written version. It is worth mentioning here that the Op should not sell the expiry product to the complainant rather the same should be destroyed. In the circumstances, we feel that the complaint deserves part acceptance.
7. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OP to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.20/- and further to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1500/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and further to pay Rs.1500/- as litigation expenses.
8. This order of ours be complied with within a period of sixty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
March 1, 2021.
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)
Member President
