By Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the Opposite party for their unfair trade practice and to get cost and Compensation.

2. Brief of complaint: The Complainant purchased fish worth Rs.70/- for Opposite Party's shop and when it was cooked the Complainant smelt sum bad smell from the fish, but as the assurance given by the Opposite Parties the Complainant did not mind it.

3. But when it was tasted by the younger son of the Complainant, he felt bad smell and not ate further, but the elder son had consumed the fish curry and same time he vomitted and felt some difficulty. Then the Complainant looked the fish thoroughly and when it is opened a very bad smell felt and so the Complainant took the fish curry and went to Sulthan Bathery Police Station and with the police people went up to Opposite parties shop and collected the address of shop owner and checked the selling fish. At that time the Health Officer Anvar also came and checked the selling fish and returned.

4. It is learnt by the Complainant from the neighboring people that somany officials are usually coming and inspecting the fish and seizing the damaged old fish but no action has been taken so far.

5. Hence the Complainant filed this complaint for redressal of his grievances for the unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties.

6. Notices were sent Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties appeared and version

filed. In the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party's version they denied all the allegation and further stated that they have no relation with the sales of fish and the Complainant is not entitled to any such relief as claimed and prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost this Opposite Parties. In the version of 3^rd Opposite party, he also denied all the allegations in the complaint and also stated that in the complaint there is no averments that whether the 3^rd Opposite Party have a fish shop or not. And no averments in the complaint that the Complainant purchased the fish from the 3^rd Opposite party's shop. The 3^rd Opposite Party stated that the Complaint is filed to harras the 3^rd Opposite party and prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint.

7. On analysing the complaint and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of Opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

8. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 is marked. Ext.A1 is the order copy of case No.ST2100/12 of the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sulthan Bathery, wherein the accused Rahim ie the 3^rd Opposite Party is pleaded guilty for offence under section 34,35,44,51(1), 84(1), 108(1) and 109 of the Madras Public Health Act and he is convicted under section 252 of CrPC, Ext.A2 is the order of the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate -1 in case No.ST2101/12. It is no way connected to this case. Ext.A3 is the order of the Hon'ble Ombudsman in OP No.785/13 between the

Complainant of this CC and Sulthan Bathery Grama Panchayath Secretary and others. Wherein, the same dispute in this complaint is discussed. Wherein it is observed that “It has become a curse that the public are affected very badly by this type of selling of materials, until and unless the laws are strictly implemented it will create problem for one and all. It is directed that the Panchayath authorities to see that the fish market and its premises are kept neat and clean everyday and there should not be unhygienic problem arising out of the same. It should be ensured that only good quality of fish is sold in the market and the food inspecting authorities should see that the fish which are sold are not in decayed conditions and no relaxation is to be done on that behalf. It is also directed the Health Inspector and Food officials to make frequent inspections and surprise inspections and ensure that the materials are properly preserved and sold. The Forum found that the Opposite Parties are having a shop in the fish market verifying Ext.A5 document. So the contention of non sale of fish by Opposite Parties cannot be believed.

9. Ext.A4 is the priscription issued by the Dr. Dharanendra Prasad for consultation of one Fahiz 12 years of age, on 02.07.2012 who is the son of the Complainant, which shows that the son of the Complainant treated by the doctor on the same day. Ext.A5 is the certificate issued by the Sulthan Bathery Grama Panchayath Secretary to this Complainant. Which shows that the 1^st 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties are holding fish shop in Sulthan Bathery fish market. Opposite Party not adduced any oral evidence.

10. On analysing all the above facts, coupled with the admission of similar offence before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I in ST 2100/12 by the 3^rd Opposite Party and findings of the Ombudsman in OP No.785/13, we are in the opinion that the instant malpractice occurred. Hence the Forum found that the selling of old and decayed fish by the Opposite Parties are purely unfair trade practice. Hence the point No.1 is found accordingly.

11. Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is found against Opposite parties, Opposite parties are liable to pay cost and compensation and the Complainant is entitled for the same. The point No.2 is found.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and Opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.70/- (Rupees Seventy) only which is received by the Opposite Parties as value of the fish and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only as compensation altogether and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only as cost of this proceedings and Opposite parties are also strictly restrained from doing unfair trade practice. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. There after the Complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 12% per annum for whole the amount. And in general the local self government authorities and Health Inspectors and Food Inspectors are directed to see that the fish market and its premises are kept neat and clean every day and there should not be any unhygienic problem arising out of the same and to ensure that only good quality of fish and meat is sold in the market and to make sure that periodical and frequent inspection are to be made to ensure that the materials are properly preserved and sold.

Dictated to CA, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of November 2014.

Date of filing:06.07.2012.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Abdullakutty Complainant.

PW2. Narayanan Nair. Asst. Secretary, Sulthan Bathery Grama Panchayath.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

Exhibit for the complainant:

A1. Copy of Order No.ST 2100/12 dt:18.09.2012.

A2. Copy of Order No. ST 2101/12 dt:19.09.2012.

A3. Order copy of the Hon'ble Ombudsman in O P. No.785/2013. Dt:19.07.2013

A4. Prescription. dt:02.07.2012.

A5. Letter. dt:22.09.2012.

Exhibits for the opposite Party.

Nil.