By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite party to supply good quality strawberry fruit to the complainant or to pay the value of strawberry fruit to the complainant and also directing the opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant gave order for 8 packets of strawberry fruit from opposite party's shop on 22.12.2013 for the celebration of new year and X mas. The complainant paid the value of fruit Rs.3,600/- to the opposite party and the opposite party agreed to supply the fruit on 23.12.2013 at Panamaram. The opposite party on 23.12.2013 supplied the strawberry fruit to the complainant at Panamaram at the shop Team plus Veg and informed the complainant over phone. Immediately the complainant went to the Team Plus Veg shop and checked the packets. On checking the complainant found that the fruits are subjected to mould and fungal infection and not edible. The complainant contacted the opposite party through telephone and informed the situation. The opposite party asked the complainant to take the strawberry fruit to the shop of opposite party and the opposite party is ready to replace it. Accordingly, the complainant on the very same day took the fruit to the shop of opposite party and the opposite party convinced that the fruit is not edible and agreed to replace it on arrival of fresh fruit, since there is no stock at that time. The opposite party also requested the complainant to take back the fruit and keep it in fridge. The complainant then took back it and kept in Fridge. Thereafter, the complainant telephoned to the opposite party on several days but opposite party repeated that no stock arrived. At last the complainant on 31.12.2013 contacted the opposite party and enquired about the replace, the opposite party informed the complainant that they are not ready to replace it since they are not giving guarantee to the fruits. The complainant therefore incurred great loss and mental agony. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to opposite party and opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of opposite party, the opposite party admitted the sale and supply. The opposite party is not giving guarantee to strawberry fruit and strawberry fruit is to be used soon after purchase. More over, the complainant kept the fruit in freezer and there is more chance of mould. The complainant stated it in the complaint also. If freezer is not worked due to lack of electricity power, the strawberry fruit will be subjected to fungal infection. The opposite party also stated that the complainant purchased the strawberry fruit for business purpose and complainant is not a consumer. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the
part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext.A1 to A4. Commissioner Report is marked as Ext.C1. In Ext.C1 the Commissioner reported that the strawberry fruit is inspected at Team Plus Shop Panamaram and seen that the strawberry is kept in chilling room in freezer in hardboard box and inside the hardboard box, there are 57 plastic transparent boxes measuring 250 grams. The Commissioner checked each and every packet and found that there is mould and fungus infection over the top part of each box. The strawberry found in the above boxes are not edible. The opposite party also filed proof affidavit and is examined as OPW1. In the cross-examination of complainant, the complainant deposed that his name is not there in Ext.A1 Bill. On perusal, it is found that his name is not there in Ext.A1. In Ext.A1 the complainant's shop name is there. The name of shop is not mentioned in the complaint and affidavit. The complainant stated that he is running a supermarket in partnership. In supermarket, there are sales of bakery, grocery, stationery, vegetables and fruits etc. In Ext.A1, no name of supermarket is shown, more over the complainant never stated his connection with team Plus
Veg's shop. The shop shown in the Ext.A1 document is a business shop. The complainant not stated in complaint that the opposite party supplied the strawberry by packing it in 57 packets. The opposite party also contented that the Ext.C1 is a report which is prepared in Ex-parte. The opposite party did not get notice before inspection. The commissioner stated that he did not verify the Ext.A1 Bill before inspection. The electricity connection in the building which the complainant runs business is a commercial connection and in commercial tariff. OPW2 stated before the Forum that he had supplied the strawberry to the complainant at Team Plus Veg shop in the presence of complainant and complainant checked the item then and there and gave the purchase price with him. Nothing is brought out against his testimony in cross-examination by complainant. OPW2's evidence corroborates the evidence of OPW1. By analyzing the entire evidences, the Forum is of the view that the complainant failed to prove his case. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No Order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 8th day of July 2015.
Date of Filing: 01.01.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Chacko. Complainant.
CW1. Nickson Francis. Advocate Commissioner.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Abdul Jaleel. Business.
OPW2. Hamza. Goods Driver.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Cash Bill. Dt:22.12.2013.
A2. License from Panchayath.
A3. Electricity Bill. Dt:04.03.2014.
A4. Receipt. Dt:10.03.2014.
C1. Commissioner Report. Dt:03.01.2014.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
