Versus
Kumaran Dosa & Fast Food, College Road, Opposite S.C.D. Govt. College, Ludhiana through its Prop. Mr. Velmurugan Perumal. …..Opposite party
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM:
SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Smt. Neelam Rani Bansal in person.
For OP : Sh. Sunny Aggarwal, Advocate.
ORDER
PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that on 20.07.2022, at about 08.30 PM, the complainant along with her 3 family members visited shop of OP for eating dosa and she ordered 4 masala dosa. On eating dosa, the complainant found a dead house fly in the sambar upon which she immediately called manager/employee of the OP and showed them the said house fly. The complainant also clicked the photographs of the said house fly. On complaint of the complainant, the OP did not pay any heed rather stated that the house fly does not cause any harm to the body and it is a common thing. The complainant stated that this shocked her and her family members. She told the employee to talk with owner/opposite party and made a call to owner of Kumaran Dosa who also showed his irresponsible attitude by saying that the house fly does not cause any harm to the complainant and her family. The deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP has caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice dated 22.07.2022 upon the OP to which the OP sent an evasive reply. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to held the OP responsible for deficient and negligent service and also to pay litigation amount of Rs.20,000/- as well as compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
2. Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections assailed the complaint on the ground of concealment of material facts; the complainant has not approached with clean hands and is guilty of misrepresentation etc.
On merits, the OP admitted the fact of visit of the complainant and her family member in its restaurant and ordering of four masala dosa. According to the OP, it has been rendering services in the Food Industry for last 25 years and has made a good name for himself in Food Industry in Ludhiana due to hard work and good quality food. Till date no complaint has been received from the customer or clients. Even the OP has taken all the due permission and licenses from the competent authorities for carrying on its business. The food items are being served are of highest quality and being cooked and served by trained staff in extremely hygienic condition. The OP further stated that no contaminant or house fly was found in the food served to the complainant on 20.07.2022. The complainant has created an unnecessary issue in its restaurant. Even the OP as a goodwill gesture and part of hospitality services, did not charge any price for the food so served to the complainant and her family and she was fully satisfied with the same. The OP further stated that it is the complainant who threatened their staff by saying that she is an Advocate practicing in District Courts, Ludhiana and will take the OP and his entire staff to task. The OP has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In support of her claim, the complainant tendered her affidavit Ex. CA in which she reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of Aadhar card of the complainant, Ex. C2 to Ex. C6 are the photographs, Ex. C7 is the dead house fly, Ex. C8 is the legal notice dated 22.07.2022, Ex. C9 is the postal receipt, Ex. C10 is the reply dated 25.07.2022 of the legal notice dated 22.07.2022 and closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex. OPA of Sh. Vel Murugan Perumal, Proprietor of the OP along with documents Ex. OP1 is the copy of his Aadhar Card, Ex. OP2 is the copy of registration certificate, Ex. OP3 is the copy of receipt issued by Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, Ex. OP4 is the copy of license issued by Government of Punjab, Department of Food Safety, Food Safety and Standard Authority of India and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.
6. Admittedly, the complainant, an Advocate by profession, along with her three family members visited OP eatery and ordered four masala dosa for herself and her family members. According to her, when she was consuming the dosa, she spotted a dead house fly in the Sambar and she clicked pictures Ex. C2 to Ex. C6. The OP has categorically denied the finding of dead house fly in the Sambar and rather asserted that an undue hue and cry was raised by the complainant and her family members just to tarnish the hard earned reputation of the OP. In order to pacify, the employee of the OP waived off the charges of dosa.
7. The complainant had produced dead house fly packed in a polythene pouch at the time of presentation of the complaint and has tried to aver that it is the same dead house fly which was found in the sambar.
8. Perusal of photographs Ex. C2 to Ex. C6 shows that the complainant and her family members are in process of consuming dosa when the photographs were clicked. In case, the complainant had found some foreign particle in the sambar, she could have demanded the complaint register from the OP or dropped her complaint in the complaint box. She could have contacted the Food Safety Officers on that very day or even on the following day. The present complaint was presented within 6 days after the incident and it remains unexplained how the dead fly was brought to home and was packed in a pouch rather in intact condition. The complainant did not make any request before this Commission at the time of presentation of the complaint to send the fly to some authorized Food lab/Forensic Lab in order to ascertain whether the fly is dipped in sambar or not. Legal notice dated 22.07.2022 Ex. C8 sent by the complainant was duly replied by the OP vide reply dated 25.07.2022 Ex. C10. The version of the complainant remained uncorroborated as no affidavit or evidence of the family members accompanying her was not produced on record. In case of contamination of sambar, the health of the complainant or her family members could have been adversely affected. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Commission is of the view that the evidence brought by the complainant is insufficient to conclude that the dead house fly shown was found in the sambar and as such, this complaint deserves dismissal.
9. As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
10. Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.
(Monika Bhagat) (Sanjeev Batra)
Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:22.07.2024.
Gobind Ram.
