Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1221/2016

AKHIL JOSHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

GENERAL MANAGER EAST CENTRAL RAILWAYS - Opp.Party(s)

25 Oct 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments:  25.10.2016

Date of Decision: 02.11.2016

Complaint No. 1221/2016

In the matter of:

Akhil Joshi,

S/o Mr. Hemant Joshi,

R/o H.No. 439, Sector-47,

Gurgaon (Haryana)-122002.                                                               …..........Complainant

 

Versus

1. General Manager,

GM Office, East Central Railway,

Vaishali, Bihar-844101.

 

 

2. M/s. Singh Caterers and Vendors,

1357, Basant Road, Pahadgangh,

•  

 

3. Managing Director,

Gopaljee Dairy Foods Pvt. Ltd.,

41-42, Pandav Nagar,

New Delhi-110008.

 

4. General Manager, Indian Railways Catering and Tourism

Corporation Ltd., B-148, 11^th Floor,

Statesman House, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001.

 

5. Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,

Rafi Marg,

Through Member Tourism & Catering,

New Delhi-110001.                                                                         ….....Opp. Party

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                              Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                   Yes/No

  O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Judgement

 

1. The complainant is an advocate by profession.  His case is that on 29.05.2016 he was travelling from Patna to Delhi by Sampuran Kranti, Train No.12393-94 against PNR No.6755096820.  OP-2 was offering service to the passengers on board by way of night meals alongwith some snacks and drinks in the pantry.  Complainant, his friends Saurabh Dobrial purchased Gopaljee Ananda Flaoured Milk 180 ml. OP-3 was the manufacturer. The milk bottle was purchased for Rs.25/- against cash memo no. 9034. When complainant and his friend wasconsuming the said milk, complainant’s friends suddenly felt some hard and foreign material in mouth and when it took out the same from mouth in front of Pantry staff, it was found to be a piece of glass.  There was hue and cry. Complainant and his friend called Pantry Manager/IC and reported the matter to him.  The Manager found himself satisfied that milk was totally unfit for consumption. In the meantime, complainant also finished  his drink and as he took his last sip, he too felt some hard and foreign material touching complainant’s vulva and again the same was found to be a piece of glass.  The Manager immediately threw away the same.  Complainant and his friends asked the manager to bring remaining stock and they were astonished to see two of the three remaining stock had piece of glass settled at the bottom of the bottles. The manager kept one of the said two bottles having glass piece on the plea that he was to show the same to his senior and agreed to discontinue the services till proper enquiry was done. Other bottle was purchased by complainant against cash memo no. 9035.  The complainant has sealed the bottle of the milk containing glass piece.

 

2. On 30^th May, 2016, complainant informed on Toll Free No.1800111321 which is Centralised Catering Services Monitoring Cell.  He twitted to Sh. Suresh Prabhu, Railway Minister of India, he went on following the complaint through Catering Services Monitoring Cell. OP-1 & 2 are under obligation to keep a quality check on food items offered by them in train.  OP-3 is not a registered supplier vendor of IRCTC as per the data of OP-4 on its website.  Thus, OP-1 & 2 could not have sold the said milk as goods of approved vendors only can be sold by OP-1

 

3. Had the milk been consumed by any child that child would have been in eminent danger of suffering grave bodily injury which could have also resulted in death and put the family in an unrepairable loss. As per report in Dainik Bhaskar  newspaper on 27.06.2015 sample taken from the premises of OP-3 failed the quality test. The complainant has sought exemplary and punitive compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-to be deposited in Consumer Welfare Fund so that such practice is not followed in future. He has sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for him for mental agony, harassment and sufferings.

 

4. I have heard the complainant at the stage of admission.  The complainant referred to the decision of National Commission in Luftansa German Airlines Vs. Rishi Bajoria & Ors. I(2007) CPJ 333 in which it was held that consumption of glass pieces embedded meal could have caused any injury either at the time of eating the same or subsequently by causing scratches in food pipe, abdomen and intestine and it could lead to death. Since OP had offered discount of 50% in the future tickets which itself could be about Rs.15,000/- per ticket, compensation of Rs.01.02,178/- was upheld.  It was observed that interest on Rs.50,000/-  could be Rs.30,000/- and the cost of litigation would come to around Rs.1,00,000/-. Tthe same has no relevancy as no compensation was assessed, rather it was on the basis of discount offered by the OP.

 

5. Complainant also relied upon the decision of National Commission in Britania India Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal IV (2015) CPJ 418 in which it was held that it was not practically possible to identify person who were affected.

 

6. In case individual consumers are not identifiable, the complainant could file a complaint in representative capacity after seeking permission under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC.  He of his own could not seek compensation claiming compensation for all.

 

7. The real hurdle in the complaint is that he has claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for purchase of milk bottle worth Rs.25/-.  The same is apparently very very high, exaggerated and inflated.  It is settled that this Commission can check the quantum of claim at the stage of admission itself if the same is highly exaggerated. If any precedent is required for this proposition, reference with advantage can be made to decision of National Commission in CC No.506/15 titled as Vikas singh Vs. BMW (I) Ltd. decided on 25.08.2015 and decision of National Commission in CC No.1520/15 titled as Ashok Kumar Goel Vs. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank decided on 21.01.2016.

 

8. The complaint is directed to be returned to the complainant for filing the same in District Forum after making the compensation reasonable.

 

9. Copy of this order be sent to all the parties free of cost.

 

10. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

   ​