Delhi

East Delhi

CC/414/2023

TEENA GAUTAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

HOME NEEDS - Opp.Party(s)

BHUPENDRA SINGH, ADV.

06 Feb 2024

ORDER

Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, DELHI -110092
DELHI EAST
 
Complaint Case No. CC/414/2023
( Date of Filing : 18 Sep 2023 )
 
1. TEENA GAUTAM
R/O FLAT NO-124, SPREME ENCLAVE, MAYUR VIHAR-I, NEW DELHI-91
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. HOME NEEDS
SHOP NO-37/38, PANDAV NAGAR, ACHARYA NIKETAN MARKET, MAYUR VIHAR, DELHI-91
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  SUKHVIR SINGH MALHOTRA PRESIDENT
  RAVI KUMAR MEMBER
  MS. RASHMI BANSAL MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 06 Feb 2024
Final Order / Judgement

CC No.           414/2023

Date:-             06.02.2024

Present:-        Sh. Sameer Malik Advocate for Complainant

 

No further documents filed. Interalia it is the case of the complainant that he purchased one packet of biscuit which when consumed by her son, he starting vomiting and she was compelled to take her son to the clinic where the doctor concerned prima-facie opined that it was the case of ‘food poisoning’ and on searching the facts as to why it has happened, the complainant came to know that the biscuit which has been consumed by her son were of expiry date/obsolete i.e. the date by which that product was to be utilized, had expired and it is alleged that OP has sold the product with expired date which amounts to deficiency in service and as such she has filed the present complaint case before this Commission alleging deficiency of service.

The Commission has perused the record. The photocopy of the packet which is filed having the logo of Parle-G is not apparently legible document or even otherwise no document which may correlate it with the very same product which was purchased by complainant against this very bill is filed. Even otherwise no document is filed as to whether the complainant’s child suffered from any clinical problem. However irrespective of the fact that any clinical problem was faced by her son or not, yet the basic issue raised is that OP sold an edible product of which date has already expired.

To appreciate this contention the bill filed by the complainant must relate to the batch no. of the product, so as to ascertain that this very product has been purchased of that particular batch, for which the bill has been generated, & this document is not filed on record. The Ld. Counsel for complainant has sought adjournment on the last date of hearing to file document but no document is filed today & since no connecting document is on record which may prima-facie establish the contention of the complainant, w.r.t. deficiency of selling a product with expired date, the complaint case is not maintainable and the same is therefore rejected. 

File be consigned to record room.

 

 
 
[ SUKHVIR SINGH MALHOTRA]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ RAVI KUMAR]
MEMBER
 
 
[ MS. RASHMI BANSAL]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.