Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he purchased 500 grams Ganesh Dalia packet on 19.05.2014 for Rs. 22/- from Maa Kamali Stores, Krishna Apartment, Near Hans Khali Pul, opp. Amar Jyoti Apartment, Bakultolla, Howrah-711109 and manufacturing date was noted as on 06.03.2014 and instructions to use before three months from the date of purchase B. No. SIB (Annexure-A).
On opening of the same packet immediately after purchase, he found worms in the Dalia and immediately showed the Dalia of the packet to the shop owner who informed the complainant that those are the packed products of the company and they have nothing to do with it. So, complainant immediately talked over phone with the manufacturer art an about 11:04 AM and informed the entire matter to one Mr. Tarun Kundu who advised the complainant to get it change from their area sales man or reach to their Burrabazar Office to change the same. But complainant informed that he is a senior citizen of 69 years and he is not in a position to visit the office of the manufacturer in the said hot weather and to incur heavy taxi fare to reach the manufacturer of Burrabazar Office. But the said manufacturer’s office men told the complainant to wait for their area sales man.
Subsequently complainant handed over the Dalia packet to op no.2 on 19.05.2014 to get it changed from their area sales man and he regularly checked from the op no.2 whether the area sales man of Ganesh Flower Mill attainted his shop but he always replied “not yet”.
On 23.06.2014 complainant received a phone call from op no.1 and op no.1 asked the complainant’s address which complainant informed to op no.1 and he also assured the complainant to inform him regarding their action in the matter by e-mail. On 23.06.2014 he received a call from M. No. 8420112601 from op no.1 and as per his request he arranged for his conversation with op no.2 whom he instructed to change the Dalia Packet and accordingly it was changed by op no.2 also informed to op no.1 that Atta of even of 5/7 days back are returned by customers because of smell and inferior quality. He also informed him that because of this discontinued to sale Ganesh Atta and preferred to sale Aashirvad Atta.
Complainant emailed one letter on 24.05.2014 to op no.1 and reminded on 28.05.2014. But complainant did not receive any reply from them till 20.06.2014, though complainant’s phone number was mentioned in the email letter to the op no.1 on 27.05.2014 again complainant telephoned to their customer help line number and it is no doubt a clear case of deficiency of service. Hence, the case is filed for redressal.
On the other hand op no.1 by filing written statement submitted that admittedly the said Dalia packet was changed by op no.2 and complainant received usable packet of Dalia. So, there is no question of grievance as alleged. At the same time Maa Kamali Stores, Krishna Apartment op no.2 did not contest in this case and did not file any receipt in respect of selling such packet. But the receipt which has been submitted by the complainant bears no address, name of the shop owner or address of the shop wherefrom he purchased the Dalia.
At the same time the said receipt is of dated 2004. So, the entire complaint is false and fabricated for which the complaint should be dismissed and in fact for the purpose of grabbing some money, this complaint is filed.
Decision with reasons
On proper consideration of the arguments as advanced by the complainant and also the Ld. Lawyer of the op and further considering the receipt it is found that receipt as filed by the complainant in support of the purchase of said Dalia Packet bears a date of 19.05.2004 that means complainant purchased one Dalia Packet in the year 2014 but he has stated that he purchased the said packet on 19.04.2014.
So, complainant has no document that he purchased the Dalia Packet on 19.05.2014. Moreover in the said receipt, there is no note of the sellers address, license number or name and considering that fact we are convinced to hold that there is no scope to rely upon such document dated 19.05.2004. Anyhow complainant has failed to produce any document in support of purchase of such Dalia on 19.05.2014.
Another factor is that the said Dalia Packet was changed by the seller op no.2. But fact remains that complainant has failed to produce the paper to show that there was such instruction that it shall be used before three months from the date of purchase. But actually op’s Ld. Lawyer submitted that the instruction was that the packet shall be used within three months from the date of manufacturing and practically the date of manufacturing was 06.03.2014 and as per complaint, he purchased it on 19.05.2014 that is after lapse of two months.
But considering the argument of the Ld. Lawyer for the op including the entire materials, it is found that Dalia is not actually manufactured but it is processed. Fact remains that after packaging, the shop owners who purchases the same from the manufacturer must have to maintain some procedure to keep it safely from any moisture or from any damage. There is no such assertion in the complaint that op the seller kept the said Dalia packet in proper place as per instruction as made in the said Dalia packet. But we have gathered that moisture may be caused for not keeping the packet in proper place and weather and due to change of the weather, different types of fungus may be formed and that cannot be saved by the manufacturer or the seller but it is the duty of seller to see before sale whether packaged article is damaged or not but that is not followed.
Truth is that it was the product of op no.1, but the seller is shop keeper. So, he is liable to return the same and he has already returned the same to the complainant and liability of the seller is there how to keep the Dalia Packet safely and to see at the time of sale whether it was in habitable condition or not.
Another factor is that in this case the complainant’s grievance had already been redressed and there is no laboratory test report that the said packet was damaged and worms were found. So, when laboratory test report is not there, we cannot rely upon the complainant’s version also. The complaint was filed even after getting redressal. But in this case it is found that the present complaint is completely without any materials and without laboratory test and it was fault of the seller. But anyhow the manufacturer is directed to be more cautious in this regard and in the packet before selling any packet to the sellers, some cautious must be noted in the packet so that seller must have to keep such sort of packet in proper weather, place and in safety. It is the ground reality that shopkeepers are not maintaining the manufactured of Atta packet or Dalia packet or Bason packet properly. There is such procedure to keep such packet in proper tinned container after purchasing from manufacturer to maintain its quality because Atta, Bason, Dalia may be damaged due to high hot weather also for not keeping it properly in an air-tight tin or box and in the present case, it is proved that there was laches on the part of the op no.2 for which it was damaged so op no.2 returned the same when he sold it as he was liable to return the same to the customer and that has been done by the op.
So, the chapter ends there and fact remains that redressal was made by the op no.2 but complainant with some ill motive did not mention on which date he got the changed Dalia packet from the op no.2 and all those factors are given this Forum a chance to believe that the entire complaint is without any legal foundation and after getting redressal from the seller, he has filed this complaint with connivance of op no.2 for which op no.2 has not appeared before this Forum. A vexatious receipt which was filed by the complainant is procured from some place but that receipt simply proves that it is of the year 2004 for which we are not relying upon the present complainant about his honesty and dignity.
In the result, the complaint fails.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the ops without any cost.
