Haryana

Panchkula

cc/246/2014

VIVEK SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HALDIRAM FOODS INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PIYUSH MITTAL.

27 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.   

                                               

Consumer Complaint No	:	246 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	26.11.2014
Date of Decision	:	27.04.2015

 

Vivek Singh s/o Sh.Parakash Singh, R/o House No.1214/B, Sector-4, Panchkula.

                                                                                       ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Haldiram Foods International Pvt. Ltd., Haldiram House, Plot No.145/146, Old Pardi Naka, Bhandara Road, Nagpur-440 008 (M.S.) India through its Managing Director. (Head Office).

2.       Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd. B-1, Sector-63, Noida 201309 Uttar Pradesh (India) through its Managing Director (Manufacturing Unit).

3.       Gupta Stores, SCO No.42, Sector-4, Panchkula, Haryana through its Proprietor.

                                                                                       ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:               Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.Anil Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Piyush Mittal, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             Ops No.1 and 2 already ex-parte.

Mr.Saurabh Sharma, Adv., for the Op No.3.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complaint has been filed by Vivek Singh-complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that on 23.09.2014, the complainant visited the shop of Op No.3 and purchased a Haldiram’s Classic Masala Peanuts packet (200 grams) for Rs.44/- vide memo No.2389 dated 23.09.2014 on the assurance of Op No.3 that the products of Ops No.1 were of the best quality and the Ops No.1 & 2 were the manufactured and were selling the products in the market last so many years. When the complainant reached the home, he was sensed on seeing that the said Haldiram’s Classic Masala Peanuts Packet (200 grams) was very light in weight. The complainant immediately visited the shop of Op No.3 and asked it to weight the Haldiram’s Classic Masala Peanuts Packet (200 grams). The Op No.3 weighted the packet and the complainant & Op No.3 were surprised to know that the said packet was actually of 150 grams instead of 200 grams. The complainant requested the Op No.3 to refund the amount of Rs.44/- as the Haldiram’s Classic Masala Peanuts Packet contained less quantity than displayed on packet. The Op No.3 told the complainant that it could not do anything for it and refused to refund the amount of Rs.44/- to the complainant. The complainant tried to contact the Ops No.1 & 2 at their customer care number which was provided on the packet but there was no response from the customer care cell or not reachable so the complainant could not lodge the complaint. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to Op No.1 through registered post and the same was received back with the report of refusal. It was deemed to have been served. The Op No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.02.2015. None entered appearance on its behalf even thereafter.
3. Notice was issued to Op No.2 through registered post and the same has not been received back served or unserved. It was deemed to have been served. The Op No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.02.2015. None entered appearance on its behalf even thereafter.
4. The Op No.3 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Op No.3 is a retailer and running the petty business of Karyana shop under the name and style of Gupta Store. It is submitted that the Op No.3 has sold the Haldiram’s Classic Masala Peanuts Packet as manufactured by Ops No.1 and 2 to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has purchased the same after checking the same and has not raised any protest at the time of its purchase. It is submitted that the weight of the packet of namkeen was less than the printed weight on the packet. It is submitted that the OP No.3 could not be made liable as the same was manufactured by Ops No.1 and 2. It is denied that after purchase of Haldiram’s Classic Masala Peanuts Packet, the complainant approached the OP No.3. It is denied that the complainant asked the Op No.3 for refund the price of Haldiram’s Classic Masala Peanuts Packet. It is denied that the Op No.3 has sold the defective product. Thus, it was pleaded, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Both the parties have adduced their evidence. The counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.3 has tendered in evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R3/A alongwith document Annexure R3/1 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
7. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased a Haldiram’s Classic Masala Peanuts packet (200 grams) for Rs.44/- from Op No.3 and he has placed on record the bill (Annexure C-1). The Op No.3 has not denied his visit on the given date and also admitted that it sold item i.e. Haldiram’s Classic Masala Peanuts Packet (200 grams). It is admitted that the weight of said namkeen packet was less quantity than displayed on packet. The complainant also approached the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Panchkula to know whether the weight of packet was less quantity than printed on abovesaid packet or not and the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Panchkula in his report dated 27.11.2014 (Annexure C-5) stated that the weight of Haldiram’s Classic Masala Peanuts Packet is 145 grams instead of 200 grams. The Ops No.1 and 2 being manufacturer of the product did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops No.1 and 2 despite notices show that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
8. In such circumstances, we have no doubt that item i.e. Haldiram’s Classic Masala Peanuts Packet purchased by the complainant was less quantity than printed on packet vide Annexure C-5. Therefore, we find considerable force in the plea of the complainant. There is a very possibility that Ops frequently indulging in such unfair trade practice and cheating the innocent customers. Further, who knows how many customers like the complainant can spare time and money to come forward to highlight the unfair trade practice adopted by the Ops?
9. The plea made on behalf of Op No.3 for exoneration from liability being a local dealer deserves to be negatived and it has further to be held that the reliance placed on judicial pronouncements misconceived. In 2012 (3) CPJ (NC) 677 (Krishi Pragati vs. Hazar UL Islam & others), the matter pertains to a manufacturing defect in a tractor. In 1999 (2) CPJ 110 (Satlej Enterprises Vs. S. Natha Singh & others) too, the manufacturing defect had been found in a colour TV.
10. The present is not a case of a manufacturing defect. It is a case of less weighment for which even a local dealer is legally accountable. When a local dealer stocks and sells a product announced to be of particular weighment, he cannot escape liabilities if the weighment announced on the package is found to be deficit. The connotation of a manufacturer defect and a less weighness are entirely different and the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the learned counsel for the Op No.3 to claim exoneration from liability has to be held to be untenable for want of identical conception.
11. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the complaint of the complainant in respect of weight less than the printed weight is based on sound footing. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The Ops are directed to make payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing him mental/physical harassment as well as financial loss due to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. The foundational premise of this finding is recorded in the course of the preceding para of this judgment.
12. This order be complied with by the Ops jointly and severely within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.  

 

 

Announced

27.04.2015    ANIL SHARMA              ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                       MEMBER                       MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

    

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT