Punjab

Sangrur

CC/382/2016

Krishan Kuamr - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hindustan Uni Lever Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Garg

06 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM, SANGRUR.

               

                                               

                                                Complaint No.  382

                                                Instituted on:    05.05.2016

                                                Decided on:       06.12.2016

 

Krishan Kumar son of Shri Ram Chand son of Shri Birbal Dass, R/o Surjan Basti, Dirba Mandi, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant.

                                Versus

1.     Hindustan Uni Lever Ltd. (HUL) Uni Lever House, BD Savant Marg, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400 099 Maharashtra through its MD/Chairman.

2.     Hindustan Uni Lever Ltd. (E) (HUL), Tea Unit, Village Assauli, GT Road, Etah 207001 (UP).

3.     Gagan Sales Agency, Peer Banna Banoi Road, Sunam, Distt. Sangrur through its prop/Owner.

4.     M/s. Kamal Department Store, Main Store, Dirba Mandi, Distt. Sangrur through its prop/owner.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Sanjeev Garg, Adv.

For OP No.1 to 3       :      Shri Kali Ram Garg, Advocate

For OP No.4             :       Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1                      Shri Krishan Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased two packets of Taza Tea from OP number 4 along with other items vide bill number 329 dated 20.2.2016 by paying an amount of Rs.130/- as the price of two Taza tea packets.  The grievance of the complainant is that the weight mentioned on the wrapper of Taza tea was 250 grams net, but the complainant found that weight of one packet was only 116 grams instead of 250 grams, which is a clear cut unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  The complainant approached the OP number 3 regarding the less weight of Taza Teaj packet, but it was told that it is not his fault and he use to sell the packets as it is as per the instructions of the OPs.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1 and 2,  preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the present complaint is a gross abuse of process of law, that the complainant has no cause of action and the Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint, that the complainant has not furnished any details of the tea packet, like batch number, date of packing and date of expiry etc.  On merits, it has been denied that the complainant had purchased the tea in question vide bill number 329 dated 20.2.2016, as original bill has not been produced.  It is denied that the weight of one Taaza tea was 116 grams instead of 250 grams, as no packets have been produced before this Forum.  It is stated further that there is no proof or averment as to when, where and how the packet was weighed and whether the machine on which it was weighed was correct or not and the same was duly certified by the Legal Meteorology Department as being accurate.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, the reply has been filed by OP number 3 on the lines of OPs number 1 and 2. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             Opposite party number 4 did not appear despite service and it was proceeded exparte on 14.06.2016.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 copy of retail invoice, Ex.C-4 Taza tea packet, Ex.C-5 copy of report dated 31.8.2016 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 to 3 has produced Ex.OP1to3/1 affidavit of Deepika, Ex.OP1to3/2 affidavit of Gagandeep and closed evidence.

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased 2 packets of Taza Tea from Op number 4 for Rs.130/- vide bill number 329 dated 20.02.2016, a copy of which on the file is  Ex.C-2. 

 

8.             In the present case, the only dispute arose on the ground that the OP number 4 supplied one of the Taza Tea packet containing lesser quantity i.e. the packet in question was having a quantity of 116 grams instead of 250 grams as mentioned on the packet.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that one of the packet of Taza Tea was having lesser quantity than the price charged for the same.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended that there was no lesser quantity in any of the packets, more so when the complainant has not produced on record any packet of Taaza Tea. 

 

9.             It is worth mentioning here that the complainant filed an application on 19.08.2016 for measurement of the weight of the disputed packet of Taaza Tea from the Weight and Measurement Department and accordingly the reply of the application was sought, wherein the OPs did not raise any objection regarding the same.   Accordingly, vide letter number 423 dated 23.08.2016 was written to the Incharge, Weight and Measurement Department, Sangrur, the packet of Taaza Tea packed on 29./12/2015, Code number EB13L was also sent for properly weighting the same.   As such, the Inspector, Legal Metrology (Weight and Measurement) Sangrur accordingly submitted his report bearing number 257 dated 31.08.2016 whereby he declared that the weight of the Taza Tea packed on 29/12/2015, Code No. EB13L in dispute was found to be 120 Grams only instead of 250 Grams as mentioned on the packet.  It is a clear cut case of lesser quantity in the packet packed by the OPs number 1 and 2. There was no explanation/justification for the same from the side of OPs number 1 and 2 that why it was so.   Though the OPs number 1 and 2 have denied the fact that there was lesser quantity in the packet of Taza Tea, but we are unable to accept such a  contention of the learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 in the presence of the report of the concerned department showing the lesser weight in the packet of Taza Tea.  We further find that it is not open for the OPs to pack lesser material than for what they are charging.  As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops number 1 to 3.  Reliance can also be placed on Ropar District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd. and another versus Ajay Sood 2005(2) CLT 593 (UT State Commission), wherein in a case of underweight of milk pouch, order of awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- was upheld by the UT State Commission Chandigarh.   As such, we find that in the present case also, the complainant has successfully proved that there was lesser quantity in the packet of Taza Tea.   Accordingly, we find deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs number 1 and 2 stand proved.

 

10.           It is worth mentioning here that the Ops number 1 and 2 had filed objections to the report of Inspector, Legal Metrology, Sangrur, wherein it has been mentioned that the complainant did not furnish any details of the tea like batch number, date of packing, date of expiry etc and that the packet was never shown to the OPs nor produced for their inspection, as such, there was no cause of sending the packets for weighting after reply of the OP and the same amounted to collection of evidence by the complainant, that the report of Inspector, Legal Metrology dated 31.8.2016 does not mention whether the packet was received duly sealed and how it was sealed and that there is complete violation of principles of natural justice as weight was recorded by the Inspector in absence of OPs or any other independent witness.  In reply the objections of the OPs number 1 and 2 have been denied. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the objections, we file that the objections filed by Ops number 1 and 2 does not carry any weight, as the packet of Taza Tea is still in sealed condition bearing code number EB13L as sent by this Forum to the Incharge, Weight and Measurement Department Sangrur vide letter number 423 dated 23.8.2016 for submitting the weight report, which was accordingly  submitted by the Inspector, Legal Metrology Department, Sangrur vide letter number 257 dated 31.8.2016 stating the weight of the packet in question as 120 grams.  As such, we dismiss the objections filed by the ops number 1 and 2 against the report submitted by the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Sangrur. 

 

11.           In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- only. We further direct Ops number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

12.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                December 6, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member