Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/323/2013

K.Arun - Complainant(s)

Versus

Heritage Foods(india) Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

16 Oct 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 04.10.2013

                                                                          Date of Order : 16.10.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.323/2013

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

                                 

K. Arun,

S/o. Mr. Kesavan,

Door No.111/170, V.R. Pillai Street,

ICE Hosue,

Triplicane,

Chennai.                                                                         .. Complainant.                                                   ..Versus..

 

The Manager,

Heritage Fresh,

Heritage Foods (India) Limited,

No.17/19, Conran Smith Road,

Gopalapuram,

Chennai – 600 086.                                                  ..  Opposite party.

          

For complainant                         :  Party in person

Counsel for opposite party        :  Mr. D. Gopinath

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to refund a sum of Rs.30/- being the cost price of Milk Beda and to  pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he purchased Milk Beda packets on 04.08.2013 vide receipt No.4020000021886 for a sum of Rs.30/-.  After reaching his house, while looking into the Milk Beda packets, it is seen that the said Milk Beda was manufactured on 18.07.2013 and it should be used within 15 days of its purchase.  Since the opposite party sold the time barred Milk Beda on 04.08.2013 the complainant was shocked and issued notice dated:08.08.2013 for which, there is no response from the opposite party.  Hence the complainant approached the Consumer Protection Council and issued notice dated:17.08.2018 and 01.09.2013 for which, the opposite party sent a reply notice dated:18.09.2013 with untenable contentions.  The act of the opposite party caused great mental agony.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite party states that the opposite party is a reputed company having retailed outlets in various places of South India.   The opposite party running the business in a methodological and  procedural manner in a computerized form of billing etc.   All the stuffs will be entered into the computer and will be regularly audited.  The opposite party has implemented high level food safety management system also.   The opposite party states that the said Milk Beda packet branded as Sri Mohan Sweetened may not belongs to the opposite party.  The complainant is trying to make use of the cover of the earlier purchase of Milk Peda in the same store and is trying to make use of the bill purchased on 04.08.2013 from the opposite party store.  The opposite party states that the Milk Beda packet branded as Sri Mohan Sweetened has been supplied to it by the manufacturer on 26.07.2013 is said to have been expiring on 09.08.2013.  Similarly, manufacturing of Milk Beda on 01.08.2013 will be expiring on 15.08.2013.  The contention of the opposite party is that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and imaginary.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 are marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of a sum of Rs.30/- paid towards Milk Beda as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with cost of Rs.5,000/-?

 

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the opposite party’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.   The complainant pleaded and contended that he purchased Milk Beda packets on 04.08.2013 vide receipt No.4020000021886 for a sum of Rs.30/- as per Ex.A1.  After reaching his house, while looking into the Milk Beda packets, it is seen that the said Milk Beda was manufactured on 18.07.2013 as per Ex.A1 and it should be used within 15 days as per Ex.A2.  Since the opposite party sold the time barred Milk Beda on 04.08.2013 proves deficiency in service.   The complainant was shocked and issued notice as per Ex.A3 for which, there is no response from the opposite party.  Hence the complainant approached the Consumer Protection Council and issued notice as per Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 for which, the opposite party sent a reply with untenable contentions.  Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice as per Ex.A5 and filed this case claiming cost price of the Milk Beda with compensation. 

6.     The contention of the opposite party is that the opposite party is a reputed company having retailed outlets in various places of South India.   The opposite party running the business in a methodological and  procedural manner in a computerized form of billing etc.   All the stuffs will be entered into the computer and will be regularly audited.  The opposite party has implemented high level food safety management system also.  But no records produced.  There shall be no chance to sell the alleged Milk Beda packets branded as Sri Mohan Sweetened after the expiry date mentioned thereon as alleged by the complainant.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the said Milk Beda packet branded as Sri Mohan Sweetened may not belongs to the opposite party.  The complainant is trying to make use of the Ex.A2, cover of the earlier purchase in the same store and is trying to make use of the bill purchased on 04.08.2013 from the opposite party store.  But the opposite party has not produced any counterfoil of such different date of sales. 

7.     Further contention of the opposite party is that the Milk Beda packet branded as Sri Mohan Sweetened has been supplied to it by the manufacturer on 26.07.2013 is said to have been expiring on 09.08.2013.  Similarly, manufacturing of Milk Beda on 01.08.2013 will be expiring on 15.08.2013.    But on a careful perusal of Ex.A2, the date printed is very clear as 18.7.2013 was purchased as per Ex.A1 on 04.08.2013 establishes the time barred nature of goods.  Further the contention of  the opposite party is that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and imaginary.  The complainant has not proved the basis for such compensation.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall refund a sum of Rs.30/- being the cost price of the Milk Beda with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.30/- (Rupees Thirty only) being the cost price of Milk Beda and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 16^th day of October 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                            PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANTS’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	04.08.2013	Copy of the bill
Ex.A2	18.07.2013	Copy of the Milk Beda cover
Ex.A3	08.08.2013	Copy of notice of the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A4	17.08.2013 & 01.09.2013	Copy of notice of the Association of Consumer and Environment Protection & Watch to the opposite party,
Ex.A5	17.08.2013 & 03.09.2013	Copy of couriers receipts and the copy lf delivery run sheet for sending the above notice
Ex.A6	18.09.2013	Copy of reply notice of the opposite party to the Association of Consumer and Environment Protection & Watch

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS: 

Ex.B1		Copy of stock statement of the opposite party for the period from 01.07.2013 to 08.08.2013
Ex.B2		Copy of Good Receipt Note for purchase of Milk Beda for the period from 04.07.2013 to 06.08.2013

 

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                            PRESIDENT