DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 680
Instituted on: 29.11.2016
Decided on: 20.04.2017
Abhishake Verma son of Shri Rampal Verma, resident of Opposite Easyday, Jhuran Wali Street, Sunami Gate, Sangrur. …Complainant
Versus
1. Easyday, Bharti Retail Limited, Shop No.573/B-2/573A, Mittal Hospital, Sunami Gate, Sangrur through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.
2. Pepsico India, 3B, DLF Corporate Park, ‘S’ Block, Qutab Enclave, Phase-III, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Managing Director.
…Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri K.S.Toor, Adv.
For OP No.1 : Shri Sumesh Garg, Adv.
For OP no.2. : Shri S.S.Ratol, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Abhishake Verma, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 12.09.2016, the complainant purchased goods including one Pepsi cane of 250 ML vide bill number 3467004111404 dated 12.09.2016 for Rs.400/-. Further case of the complainant is that when he reached his residence, he found that 250 ML cane of Pepsi Soft drink was empty and nothing was there in the same, which is totally illegal and amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant immediately brought the matter to the notice of the OP number 1 and requested him to refund the amount of Rs.20/-, but nothing was happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund him the amount of Rs.20/- so charges and further to pay him an amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest and compensation.
2. In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased various goods vide bill dated 12.09.2016. However, it has been denied that the Pepsi cane of 250 ML was empty at the time of its sale. It is further denied that the complainant ever brought this fact at any time. It is stated that the complainant has concocted a false story. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
3. In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious, that the complaint deserves dismissal that the cane in question is still in the possession of the complainant, that the complainant has not shown the product as such has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs. On merits, it has been stated that it is unbelievable that the cane supplied to the complainant was empty and even if empty cane is there, ideally the shopkeeper could have replaced the alleged cane for another cane, instead of handing over the cane for the purpose of litigation which clearly brings out the malafide intention of the complainant to harass the OP. It is further stated that the complainant never made any representation to any authority for the same. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 Pepsi cane in box and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased various household items vide bill dated 12.09.2016 from OP number 1 including the Pepsi cane of 250 ML having product number 890208105021, as is evident from the copy of bill, which is on record as Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 is the photocopy of cane in question. But, the grievance of the complainant is that he found to be empty when he tried to use the same. The complainant has also produced on record the Pepsi cane in box, which is Ex.C-3, which clearly shows that the same is empty one. There was no explanation/justification for the same from the side of OPs number 1 and 2 that why it was so. Though the OPs number 1 and 2 have contended that the complainant never approached the Ops for replacement of the same, nor sought any refund of the same. But, the fact remains that the OP number 2 packed and sold empty cane in the market, which is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Op number 2. Reliance can also be placed on Ropar District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd. and another versus Ajay Sood 2005(2) CLT 593 (UT State Commission), wherein in a case of underweight of milk pouch, order of awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- was upheld by the UT State Commission Chandigarh. Accordingly, we find deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP number 2 as the OP number 2 sold and packed the empty cane of Pepsi.
7. In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- only and further direct OP number 2 to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid account maintained with the District Forum, Sangrur.
8. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
April 20, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
