Punjab

Sangrur

CC/74/2018

Makhan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Sanjeev Garg

06 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM,  SANGRUR.

               

                                               

                                                Complaint No.  74

                                                Instituted on:    15.02.2018

                                                Decided on:       06.08.2018

 

Makhan Lal son of Satpal resident of Ward No.7, Surjan Basti, Koharian Road, Dirba Mandi, District Sangrur.                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                Versus

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

2.     Gagan Sales Agency, Peer Banna Banoi Road, Sunam, Distt. Sangrur through its proprietor/ owner.

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

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Sanjeev Garg, Adv.

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

For OPs No. 2 and 3 :       Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sarita Garg,  Member

 

1                      Makhan Lal, 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 four packets of Surf Excel Easy Wash of Rs.10/- each from OP number 3 along with other items vide bill number 19 dated 19.01.2018 by paying an amount of Rs.1572/- in total.  The grievance of the complainant is that the net weight mentioned on the surf Excel Pouch is 25 gms but the complainant found that weight of one packet was only 25 grams instead of 90 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  but it was told that it is not his fault. 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,  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 Surf Excel Easy Wash like batch number or manufacturing date etc.  On merits, it has been denied that the complainant had purchased the four packets of Surf Excel Easy Wash vide bill number 19 dated 19.01.2018, as original bill has not been produced.  It is denied that the weight of one packet of Surf Excel Pouch  was 25 grams instead of 90 grams, as no packets have been produced before this Forum nor same have been sealed as required under law.  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.             Opposite parties number 2 and 3 did not appear despite service and they were proceeded exparte on 04.04.2018.

 

4.             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 report, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-8 copies of surf excel easy wash packets and closed evidence.

 

5.             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.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased four packets of Surf Excel Easy Wash of Rs.10/- each alongwith other items from Op number 3 vide bill number 19 dated 19.01.2018, a copy of which on the file is Ex.C-2. 

 

7.             In the present case, the only dispute arose on the ground that the OP number 3 supplied four packets of Surf Excel Easy Wash  containing lesser quantity i.e. the packet in question was having a quantity of 25 grams instead of 90 grams as mentioned on the packet.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that  the packet of Surf Excel Easy Wash 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 Surf Excel Easy Wash. 

 

8.             It is worth mentioning here that the complainant filed an application on 09.02.2018 for measurement of the weight of the disputed packet of Surf Excel Easy Wash 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 196 dated 17.05.2018 written to the Incharge, Weight and Measurement Department, Sangrur, four packets of Surf Excel Easy Wash were sent for properly weighting the same.   As such, the Inspector, Legal Metrology (Weight and Measurement) Sangrur accordingly submitted his report bearing number 248 dated 18.05.2018 whereby he declared that the weight of the each Surf Excel Easy Wash in dispute was found to be 26g,32g, 20g and 16g respectively of each packet only instead of 90 Grams as mentioned on the packet.  It is a clear cut case of lesser quantity in the packet packed by the OP number 1. There was no explanation/justification for the same from the side of OP number 1  that why it was so.   Though the OP number 1  has denied the fact that there was lesser quantity in the packet of Surf Excel Easy Wash, but we are unable to accept such a  contention of the learned counsel for OP number 1 in the presence of the report of the concerned department showing the lesser weight in the packet of Surf Exel Easy Wash. 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.  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 Surf Excel Easy Wash.   Accordingly, we find deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP number 1 stand proved.

 

9.             It is worth mentioning here that the Op number 1  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 Surf Excel Easy Wash like batch number, date of packing, date of expiry etc and that the packet was never shown to the OP 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 18.05.2018 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 OP number 1 has been denied. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the objections, we find that the objections filed by Op number 1  does not carry any weight, as the packet of Surf Excel Easy Wash is still in sealed condition sent by this Forum to the Incharge, Weight and Measurement Department Sangrur vide letter number 196 dated 17.05.2018 for submitting the weight report, which was accordingly  submitted by the Inspector, Legal Metrology Department, Sangrur vide letter number 248 dated 18.05.2018 stating the weight of the packet in question as 26 grams.  As such, we dismiss the objections filed by the op number 1 against the report submitted by the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Sangrur. 

 

10.           In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct OP no.1 to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs15,000/- on account of mental pain, agony harassment and litigation expenses. We further direct OP number 1 to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained with the District Consumer Forum, Sangrur  on account of unfair trade practice on their part.

11.           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.

                Announced.

                August 6, 2018.

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member