DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 344 of 4.12.2007 Decided on : 26.2.2008 <br /> <br /> <br /> Gurminder Singh S/o Sh. Labh Singh, R/o Handyaya, District Barnala. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> Kashmira Pure Drinking Water, Kashmira Hygienics (P) Ltd., V.P.O. Gobindpura, Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager<br /> ..... Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. K.S Dabrikhana, Advocate<br /> For the opposite party : Exparte<br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Complainant had purchased 16 Boxes containing Polypack water glasses from the opposite party for a consideration of Rs. 480/- vide bill No. 10436 dated 31.10.2007. Each glass was containing 200 ml water. Product was sent by the opposite party through vehicle No. PB-03P-9174. They were purchased by the complainant for his use and the use of his family. Opposite party had assured that this mineral water was very good for health. When one polypack glass was opened, complainant was shocked to know that there was some insects in the water. In another, spider was swimming. He and his family could not use water in the polypack glasses as they could be dangerous to his health and the health of his family. Matter was brought to the notice of the opposite party. He was apprised by its concerned persons that they could do nothing. Remaining polypack water glasses were neither got returned nor the price was refunded. He alleges that he has suffered mental pain, agony and sufferings. In these circumstances, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred against the opposite party seeking direction from this Forum to it to refund Rs. 480/- i.e. the price of the Polypack water glasses; pay him Rs. 50,000/- for mental pain, agony and sufferings and Rs.3,300/- as costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Registered A.D. post notice was issued to the opposite party on 13.12.2007. Neither registered cover nor A.D was received back upto 16.1.2008. No-one came present from the opposite party to contest the case even after the expiry of 30 days after the issuance of registered A.D post notice. Accordingly, opposite party has been proceeded against exparte.<br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Gurminder Singh complainant tendered in exparte evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.3), affidavit (Ex.C.4) of Sh. Gian Singh, original bill dated 31.10.2007 (Ex.C.1), Gate Pass dated 31.10.2007 (Ex.C.2) and report of Public Analyst, Punjab (Ex.C.5).<br /> 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 5. Complainant through affidavit Ex.C.3 reiterates his version in the complaint. Purchase of 16 Boxes of Polypack water glasses make Royal Challenge and Hayawar by the complainant from the opposite party on 31.10.2007 for a consideration of Rs. 480/- is proved from the Retail Invoice Ex.C.1. Ex.C.4 is the affidavit of Sh. Gian Singh. His wife Sukhwinder Kaur is the owner of Tata 407 having registration No. PB-03P-9174. He is usually driving that vehicle. In the month of October, 2007, he was working with the opposite party for supplying the purified water of the opposite party at various places. Bill No. 10436 dated 31.10.2007 was handed over to him. Similarly Gate Pass No. 782 dated 31.10.2007 was given. Original Gate Pass was delivered by him to the Gate Keeper. Its copy Ex.C.2 was kept by him. As per instructions of the Manager of opposite party, boxes of mineral water were loaded in the vehicle. Gian Singh had supplied the boxes to the complainant on 31.10.207. Bill was also given by him to him.<br /> 6. Allegation of the complainant is that water in the polypack glasses was unfit for consumption as in one of the polypack glass spider was swimming and in another, there was some insect. After filing the complaint, an application was moved by the complainant for getting one polypack glass make Royal Challenge containing water tested from the laboratory. Accordingly, it was sent to the District Public Analyst, Punjab Food Laboratory, Bathinda as per provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Public Analyst, Punjab, Bathinda has submitted his report Ex.C.5 opining that sample does not comply with the provisions of Rule 32(c), (e) & (f) of P.F.A Act 1954 and Rules 1955. It is misbranded. It also contains suspended matter and one dead insect (small Cockroach) and is contaminated with coliform bacteria. Hence, the contents are unhygienic and unfit for human consumption. Evidence of the complainant has gone unchallenged and unrebutted as opposite party has not cared to contest the complaint. Accordingly, the conclusion is that opposite party misrepresented that mineral water is very good for health and sold it in polypack glasses to the complainant. Infact, it was unhygienic and unfit for human consumption. Not to speak of this, even one dead insect (small Cockroach) was found in the contents of one of the polypack glass. No other inference can be drawn than the one that such small Cockroach must have gone inside the polypack glass while it was filled. In these circumstances, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party is proved.<br /> 7. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Opposite party has attempted to play with the health of the complainant and his family members by way of selling unhygienic and unfit for human consumption mineral water. It charged Rs. 480/- for selling 16 Boxes in which there were polypack glasses containing mineral water. Since the water was unfit and unhygienic, complainant deserves the refund of the price of the boxes alongwith interest. Opposite party has indulged in unfair trade practice. There is deficiency in service on its part as well. Act and conduct of the opposite party must have caused mental agony and pain to the complainant. For all this, complainant deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 5,000/- in this case.<br /> 8. In the result, complaint is allowed exparte against the opposite party with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Opposite party is directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Refund Rs. 480/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from the date of purchase till payment.<br /> ( ii ) Pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation under section 14(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> ( iii ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 9. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> 26.02.2008 President<br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member Member<br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br />