Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

                                                   Complaint No. 400 of 2013.

                                                   Instituted on: 20.8.2013.

                                                    Date of decision: 8.4.2015.

Mukesh Gulia son of Shri Daya Nand Gulia, resident of Bank Colony, Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani.

………Complainant.

                 Versus

Eaza Restaurant, Near Adarsh College, Hansi Gate, Circular Road, Bhiwani, through its Prop. Chander Parkash.

                                                    ………Respondent.

                  COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

                  CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Sitting:      Shri B.D. Yadav, President,

                 Shri Balraj Singh, Member,

                 Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member,

Present:    Shri K.K.Malik, Advocate, for complainant.

                  Shri R.N.Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent.

ORDER

         The case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 25.6.2013 he along with his friend visited the restaurant of respondent for taking dinner and placed orders for some food articles. The complainant further alleged that when he along with his friend were eating the food took a bite of missi roti he felt some hard thing between teeth and in his throat. The complainant took out the article from his throat which was found to be a copper pin  as a result of which he suffered heavy pain  and injuries in his throat. The complainant further alleged that after making payment of the bill he went to his home and taking a pain killer but on the next day when he woke up in the morning he felt heavy pain in his throat. The complainant further alleged that due to heavy pain he went to Jindal Hospital, Hisar for treatment of his throat and the concerned doctor after checking prescribed the medicines as mentioned in OPD card dated 26.6.2013. The complainant further alleged that due to the negligency of respondent he had suffered pain and suffering mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. The complainant further alleged that he had got served a legal notice through his counsel for compensation but of no use. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent and as such, he had to file the present complaint. 

2.               Respondent on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant had never visited the restaurant on 25.6.2013 with his friend nor ordered any food articles. It is submitted that complainant had not suffered any pain while taking the bite of missi roti. It is submitted that no tamba pin was found in the missi roti nor it was thrown out by the complainant from his throat.. Moreover, no such happening as alleged had taken place in the restaurant on 25.6.2013 or any other date.  It is further submitted that record bill book reveals that no such bill was issued in the name of Mr. Mukesh Gulia on 25.6.2013. It is further submitted that the complainant had never taken any treatment from any hospital. It is further submitted that the prescription slip and papers of hospital show that the medicines prescribed are for the problems usually occurring due to dust as well as for stomach. It is also submitted that the complainant had never suffered any mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses on the part of answering respondent. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.              Both the parties filed their duly sworn affidavits in their evidence to prove their respective versions. 

4.               We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.

5.              The sole contention of Ld. Counsel for the respondent is that no such happening as alleged had taken place in the restaurant nor any bill was issued in the name of Mr. Mukesh Gulia on 25.6.2013. He further argued that complainant had not suffered any pain while taking the bite of missi roti nor tamba pin as alleged was found in the missi roti. The treatment record produced by the complainant is false as the medicines prescribed are for the problems usually occurring due to dust as well as for stomach.

6.              In our view, this argument of Ld. Counsel for the respondent is without force because the complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on record Annexure C1 Photo stat copy of Bill dated 25.6.2013 which clearly show that the complainant visited the restaurant of respondent for taking dinner and placed orders for some food articles. Moreover, the complainant has also placed on record Annexure C2 to C10 photo stat copies of treatment chart for the throat pain as well as x-ray of teeth. Moreover, the version of the complainant is also supported by his friend Naveen Kumar by way of affidavit. On the other hand the respondent has miserably failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove his version. It was the duty of the respondent to produce the medical expert evidence to disprove the treatment record produced by the complainant but he has miserably failed to do so with the reason best known to him. Ld. Counsel for the respondent also argued that the medical papers submitted by the complainant are not valid for medico legal purpose. This argument of Ld. Counsel for respondent is also not tenable as no reason has been given by the respondent as to why the doctor has issued the prescriptions and how the papers are not valid. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also pointed out that there was oral bleeding as per medical report Annexure C-10. Ld. Counsel has also placed on record the opinion of medical officer Annexure C-11/1 that injuries could be caused by the sharp object.

7.              Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the complainant has suffered pain, harassment, humiliation and mental agony due to the act and conduct of the respondent and as such he is entitled for compensation for pain in his throat and for medicines etc. So, the complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs and the respondent is directed to:-

                 1- To pay Rs.15000/- as compensation.

                 2- To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.

                  The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.  Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 8.4.2015

President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Anita Sheoran),                 (Balraj Singh)

Member.                     Member.