Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/423/2006

Kevin Joseph - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lion Dates Impex (p) Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

S.Elambharathi

03 Jul 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   25.08.2006

                                                                        Date of Order :   03.07.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO. 423/2006

MONDAY THIS  3^RD  DAY OF JULY 2017

 

Kevin Joseph Rebello,

No.3, (0ld No.2),

Bank Street,

Kilpauk,

Chennai 600 010.                                       .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

1.   M/s. Lion Dates Impex (P) Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

NO.2, Flat No.8, Wheat Crafts Road,

Golden Perch Apartment,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai 600 034.

 

2. Spencer’s,

Great Wholesale Club Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager,

NO.98/1, Avvai Shanmugam Road,

Royapettah,

Chennai 600 014.                                    ..  Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant           :    M/s. S.Elambharathi & others    

Counsel for opposite party-1     :    M/s. M. Vijayanand

Counsel for the opposite party-2:   M/s. N.V.N. Marganeyan

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service & mental agony and Rs.2/- towards extra amount collected above MRP rate by the 2^nd opposite party and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the complaint.  

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that  on 17.8.2006 he purchased a 200 gm packet of “Lion Seedless Dates” from the 2^nd opposite party.    The complainant also states that it was found that the said Dates are unfit for consumption as some worms were coming out of the said packet and when the complainant looked into the cover of the said product for the date of manufacture, it was mentioned as April 2006 and it was also mentioned as best before four months from the date of packaging.  

2.     Further the complainant state that the 2^nd opposite party have sold the above said Lion date after the expiry date i.e. in the month of August.   The complainant also states that the 2^nd opposite party was negligent in selling the product thereby committed deficiency in service.   The complainant states that the Maximum retail price was mentioned as Rs.13.00 in the packet of the Lion Dates, sold by the 2^nd opposite party but the 2^nd opposite party collected Rs.15.00 (i.e.) Rs.2/- above the MRP rate from the complainant, which is unfair trade practice.  Accordingly the complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.8.2006 to both the opposite parties and also filing a separate petition for the direction to analyze the

 

defect food product in appropriate laboratory.    As such the act of the opposite party clearly amounts gross deficiency in service and thereby caused deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental agony to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

3. The brief averments in the Written Version of  the 1^st  opposite party   are as follows:

        The 1^st  opposite party state that the opposite party denies all the allegations contained in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted herein and this opposite party puts the complainant to strict proof of each and every allegation.  The 1^st opposite party states that the date fruits are being procured both indigenously and as well by import.  The date fruits after being carefully selected are packed without any treatment and the entire packing system is done by state of art machinery and one in a very clean environment subject to the norms provided by the State and Central Government.   The 1^st opposite party also state that  the 2^nd opposite party does not have the necessity to forcibly sell the subject product that too after the expiry of shelf life of the product and as such the allegation as to the negligence on the part of the 2^nd opposite party is untenable.      Hence there is no deficiency in service on the 1^st  opposite party and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

4. The brief averments in the Written Version of  the 2^nd   opposite party   are as follows:

The 2^nd opposite party state that the opposite party denies all the allegations contained in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted herein and this opposite party puts the complainant to strict proof of each and every allegation.   The 2^nd opposite party states that without prejudice to our rights we would like to place on record that if the complaint had purchased the said product from the complainant’s store after payment of the excess MRP of Rs.2/- as stated by the complainant, the complainant never before raised the issue with the 2^nd opposite party and except in the impugned advocate notice which was issued after August 23, 2006 which was never served on the 2^nd opposite party.  The above said issue was only dealt after six days from the purported date of the notice.   The 2^nd opposite party has a very good reputation in the retail sector.   Further the 2^nd opposite party states that  the 2^nd opposite party does not accept the lab report given by the public analyst, Food analysis laboratory, Guindy.    There is no proper cause of action to file this complaint.   There are no proper documents namely bill, to substantiate the complainant’s claim.    Hence there is no deficiency in service on the 2^nd opposite party and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.        In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties filed and no document marked on the side of the opposite parties and also Ex.C1 marked.

6.   The point for the consideration is:  

          Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/-

          towards mental agony caused by the opposite parties by

          way of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in this

          case with cost as prayed for ?

 

7. ON POINT :

 

          Heard the complainant counsel and opposite party-2.   The opposite party-1 counsel not turned up to advance any oral arguments, after filing written arguments.  The learned counsel for the complainant pleaded and contended that on 17.8.2006 the complainant purchased  “200 gm packet of “Lion Seedless Dates” from the opposite party-2 for a sum of Rs.15/-.  Ex.A1 is the cash receipt.   The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that on verification of the date packet it is printed that MRP Rs.13/-, Batch No.J/25760, packed on April 2006 and it is best before four months from the date of packing.    But the 2^nd opposite party sold the same date packet for Rs.15/- (i.e.) Rs.2/- excess proves unfair trade practice.    Equally on verification of  Lion date pocket it is seen that there are number of worms in it.   Immediately the complainant issued legal notice Ex.A2 and filed this complaint requesting to send the date pocket for food processing  Laboratory at Guindy.   In the lab after due examination submitted a report Ex.C1 dated 27.9.2006 stating that  

Appearance:    Brown colour (Mass) dates without seeds, 20

                       live  Insect  present

 

 

Microbiological Examination :

1. Total count 2.8. x 10 CPU

The sample is found to contain 20 live insects, the presence of which makes the sample unwholesome and not fit for use for human consumption.

 

Proves manufacturing defects and deficiency of service of the opposite parties.  The contention of the opposite parties is that they are the leading manufacturers of several kinds of food products much less natural food products.  They procured the fruits particularly the dates fruits both indigenously and as well as  by import and carefully packed after due selection by machinery with clean environment etc. subject to the norms provided by the State and Central Governments.   But it is very clear from the records and the sample that the opposite parties packed the date fruits contain worms and sold to the complainant / consumer after the due date.   All the contention raised in the written version and the written arguments regarding no knowledge and forcible sending the lab are untenable.    Further the compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant.   It is apparently very clear that the opposite parties packed low quality of dates having worms and sold after expiry of date.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.15/- towards the cost of the dates and compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and mental agony with cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant and point is answered according.

  

          In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.15/- (Rupees Fifteen only) towards the cost of the dates and compensation of Rs.10,000/-  (Rupees ten thousand only) towards deficiency of service, unfair trade practice and mental agony and cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant. 

The above  amount shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.       

  Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  3^RD day  of  July 2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1- 17.8.2006  -  Copy of bill for the goods purchased from 2^nd opposite

                               party.

Ex.A2- 23.8.2006  -  Copy of Legal notice issued to the opposite parties.

Ex.A3-         -       -  Copy of Dates packet front page

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -   .. Nil..

Court side Exhibits:

 

Ex.C1- 27.9.2006 - Analytical Report by King Institute, Guindy.

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.