The fact of the case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant has instituted this case with allegation of less weight of a Horlicks biscuit packet of 50 gms less weight. The lengthy fact scribed in the complaint can be précised that complainant purchased sealed packet of Horlicks biscuit on 18.8.2014. Later complainant checked the weight in another weighing machine in the locality and found that the weight of the packet was 250 gms i.e. he suffered a loss of 50 gms of biscuit (300 gms – 250 gms). Hence, this complaint filed by the complainant against deficiency of quantity of Horlicks biscuit against the OP no.1 , 2 and 3 who are the producer, distributor and quality checking authorities within India but outside the jurisdiction of Hooghly district. The complainant has embodied Op no.4 as a Proforma Opposite party. Complainant instituted the case for granting compensation and punitive damages who are situated outside the territorial of this Forum.
However, notice was and those Op no. 1,2 and 3 appeared through their representatives and filed written version separately. OP no.1 and 2 filed written versions denying inter alia all material allegations. It is specifically stated by Op no.1 and 2 that the case is barred by limitation . The complainant did not adduce any evidence of purchase , except piece of paper which is not a reliable piece of
evidence. There is no evidence that the complainant ‘s alleged packet was weighting less . Accordingly, there is no adequate evidence and reasonability of the complaint so the case may be dismissed.
Op no.3 filed written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The Op no.3 stated that the case is barred by limitation. The complainant has not adduced any evidence in support of the less weight. At the time of purchasing the biscuit from Op no.4 the complainant did not have any complaint as to the weight and quantity of biscuit content in the packet of Horlicks biscuit purchased by the complainant and complainant paid the price . Later the complainant raised allegation of less weight. The complainant has not adduced any photograph to show the contents of the said biscuit packet . The complainant has not adduced any slip or endorsement generated by the weighting machine, on which the complainant alleged weight the biscuit packet . So the allegation of the complainant regarding the less weight is baseless and vague and concocted story to lower down the estimation of the Horlicks Biscuit company , which is a reputed company throughout India with all protective and pragmatic measures to keep its quality and quantity in all respect. Accordingly, the allegation of the complainant
is baseless and vague and the without any cogent evidence. As such, the same should be dismissed.
Op no.4 did not turn up and contest the case , although summon was served upon him. So, the case was heard exparte against op no.4.
Complainant filed one photo copy of kachha receipt issued by the Op no.4. Complainant also filed evidence in chief, W.N.A. OPs filed Written version, Evidence in chief and W.N.A. and copy of some other documents.
POINTS FOR DECISION :
- Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Point no.1
It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased one packet of Horlicks biscuit from the shop of Op no.1 after paying price. So the complainant is a
consumer under the Ops U/s 2(d)(i) of the C.P.Act, 1986. The point no.1 is thus answered in favour of the complainant.
Point no.2 and 3
Both the points are taken together for easiness of discussion.
The statement of the complainant in evidence in chief is that he purchased the Horlicks biscuit packet from the shop of oP no.4 and at home he measured the packet and found less weight of 50 gms than recorded in the packet. But complainant did not file any paper or any evidence by presenting any person in front of which the weighting was done. The complainant purchased the same on 18.8.2014 . He found less weight as per his contention on the same date i.e. 18.8.2014 ( as per slip ) attached with complaint. But he filed the complaint before this on 16.8.2016 . Such kind of action is self explanatory and beyond the thinking of a common man, that what prevented him to file this case within some months . Moreover, the complainant did not file any application to make the weight and to verify the contents by any Govt. Authority. During the course of proceeding and on 20.2.2017 the complainant filed those packet with a sealed container before this forum. The material was forwarded to the Legal Metrology , Hooghly on 28.2.2017 for proper weighting and report i.e. about two and half
years later from the date of purchase. Report dated 2.3.2017 filed by the Assistant Controller , Legal Metrology shows that the person present are all Govt. officials but none were present on behalf of the Op. Subsequently, on 20.7.2017 the oP no.3 has raised objection. This evidence is ofcourse belated evidence and this forum has to rely on this evidence on severe caution. The case was instituted on 16.8.2016 and admitted on 23.8.2016. Since then, the complainant did not take any step to present the packet of biscuit in this Forum and no reliable document regarding less weight was produced by him and on 28.2.2017 report appeared before this Forum. Such delaying on the part of the complainant can defeat the ends of justice. In the report there is no mention what was the material in the packet and the condition of that material. The condition of this packet . It is general probability that after lapse of about three years the article kept in the packet will be damaged due to weather and other chemical condition. So, this cannot be concluded regarding less weight allegation of the complainant. So, after considering the pros and cons , preponderance of probability of this case and manner and fashion in which the case has been instituted after a prolong period from the date of purchase is becoming a questionable fact before us. Moreover, the person whose custody the complainant has purchased the article
has not been made party in this proceeding. OP no.4 has been made a proforma OP . This is fabricated case and after a prolong thought . Accordingly, on the premises described hereinbefore we are of opinion that material in record is not sufficient to prove the complainant’s allegation. As such, the case fails miserably. Hence it is –
Ordered
That the Complaint case no. 130 of 2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
