Haryana

Panchkula

CC/99/2017

RAJ KUMAR JINDAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.D ,BONN NUTRINETS PVT .LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY KUMAR NARA

16 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.         

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	99 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	09.05.2017
Date of Decision	:	16.11.2017

 

Raj Kumar Singal S/o Sh. Sukhdev Das R/o Flat No.303, Holly Hock Block, Amravati Enclave, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula.

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1. The Managing Director, Bonn Nutrinets Pvt. Ltd. 204/K-1, Chandigarh Road, Jhabwal, Ludhiana 141123, (Punjab), India.

 

2. Garg Karyana Store, Booth No.4-5, Amravati Enclave, Tehsil-Kalka, District Panchkula.

 

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Mr.Ajay Nara, Adv., for the complainant. 

Mr.G.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for OP No.1.

Mr.Anil Kaliraman, Advocate for OP No.2.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1.             The complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been moved by complainant against the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts are that on 4.4.2017 the complainant visited OP No.2 for purchasing various items including whole-wheat Atta bread weighing 400 gms manufactured by OP No.1 for an amount of Rs. 30/-. On 5.4.2017, wife of the complainant prepared the breakfast which included the fresh bread and a glass of milk. When the complainant taking the bites of the bread, suddenly he felt something hard in his throat and started feeling difficulty in swallowing and due to body reaction, he vomited on the table. Then complainant noticed that there was a piece of glass in the bread, which he had accidently eaten without having any knowledge. The complainant immediately approached the OP No.2 and apprised him about the defected bread and lodged the protest. The OP NO.2 showed his inability to do anything on the pretext that OP No.1 is manufacturer of the bread and the same is being supplied by OP No.1 through his supply agents and told the complainant to apprise OP no.1 about the incident. The complainant gave a telephone call to the OP No.1, which was attended by a lady on behalf of OP no.1 and she assured the complainant that a responsible person on behalf of OP No.1 would call back within half an hour. But after passing 90 minutes, the complainant did not get any response. Thereafter, complainant gave calls many time. The person talking on the other side informed the complainant that the representative of the company in the area of the complainant would contact the complainant and sort out the problem. In the evening the representative of the area of the company contacted the complainant through his mobile number and met the complainant and assured to look into the matter and finally at about 9.37 p.m left the message at the mobile phone number of the complainant that he would revert tomorrow morning. Even the distributer of the OP No.1 gave a call from the mobile number and advised the complainant as not to raise such type of petty issues. Thereafter despite repeated calls given by the complainant to the OP No.1 and his distributor, none of them responded. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, the present complaint was moved by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, Ops No.1 and 2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing their separate written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; the complaint is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction; there is no cause of action arise against the OP; the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party. 

4.             In his written version, the OP No.1 has stated that the complainant has not attached any bill or voucher or any other documentary evidence to show that he had purchased the alleged bead which was allegedly found defective. No medical evidence has been placed on record of the file to show of the actual loss suffered if any. The alleged bread has not been manufactured by the OP No.1.  He further stated that Bonn Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. is a company engaged in the manufacturing of various types of bakery and foods items and the company maintains very high and stick standard of manufacturing at its plant and the quality control of the plant is world class and approved by various Govt. Agencies.  Thus there is no chance of any condemnation of the food items manufactured by the company.

5.             OP No.2 has stated that no bill or cash memo qua the alleged purchased bread item was submitted by the complainant. The OP No.2 is not the manufacture of the alleged bread. The complainant is the routine/pet customer of the OP No.2. It is wrong that complainant had purchased the alleged bread from the OP NO.2. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the remaining contents of the complaint were denied. Preliminary objections were repeated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

6.             The counsel for the complainant placed on record affidavits as Annexure C-A and C-B along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, the Ops have placed on record the affidavits as Annexure R1/A and R2/A and have closed their evidence.

7.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully and have also considered the written arguments submitted by the counsel for the Op No.2. 

8.                     The complainant specifically alleged that on 04.04.2017 he purchased various items including whole-wheat Atta bread weighing 400 gms from Op No.2 manufactured by Op No.1 for an amount of Rs.30/-. On 05.04.2017, the wife of the complainant was prepared the breakfast which included the fresh bread and a glass of milk. When the complainant was taking the bites of the bread, suddenly he felt something hard in his throat and started feeling difficulty in swallowing and due to the body reaction, he vomited on the table.  The complainant noticed that there was a piece of glass in the bread which he had accidently eaten without having any knowledge. The complainant immediately approached the OP No.2 and apprised him about the defected bread and lodged the protest.  The Op NO.2 showed his inability to do anything on the pretext that OP No.1 is manufacturer of the bread and the same is being supplied by Op No.1 through his supply agents and told the complainant to apprise OP No.1 about the incident. He tendered his affidavit (Annexure C-A) to this effect. His statement is also corroborated by Mr.Sameer Syal who also tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-B.  Empty packet (Annexure C-1) also proved that he purchased that Atta Whole-wheat bread on the abovesaid date.  The Op No.2 in his reply has stated that the complainant has not submitted any bill or cash memo qua the purchase of bread.  It has also stated that the complainant is the routine/pet customer of OP No.2 whereas it has been denied that the complainant had purchased the alleged bread from the Op No.2. On the one hand, the Op No.2 admitted that the complainant is routine/pet consumer of Op No.2 and on the other hand he denied that the complainant has purchased the bread.  The case of the Op No.2 is not that he is not selling bonn Atta Whole-wheat bread manufactured by Op No.1. Whereas the complainant has submitted his affidavit Annexure C-A and affidavit Annexure C-B of Mr.Sameer Syal in this regard. Had the complainant purchased the bread from Op No.2, why he should have filed the complaint against him because he is not having any enmity with him. In these circumstances, stand of the complainant cannot be disbelieved.

9.                     Where the OP No.2 showed his inability to do anything and on his asking the complainant contacting the Op No.1, the manufacturer of the bread and gave telephonic calls on telephone No.01616617700, 917082574300 and 919914512516. The Op No.1 has not denied that these telephone numbers are not of their. It proves that the complainant had made the calls to the Op No.1 regarding his grievances. It is also not denied by the Op No.1 that the bread contained in pouch (Annexure C-1) is not manufactured by them.

10.                    The contents of vomiting showing the piece of bread glass covered with pieces of bread (Annexure C-2) and photographs have been produced by the complainant. This Forum has seen and found that a piece of glass is seen embeded in the bread. 

11.                    From the above discussion, it is beyond doubt clear that the bread purchased by the complainant contained a piece of glass. Such type of irregularity on the part of the Ops certainly is an act of deficiency in service and is also a clear cut violence of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and rules made therein which ensure that the consumer have the right to be provided with healthy and safe food, prepared, stored and packed under hygienic condition. 

12.                    We are further of the opinion that the present complaint has not been filed by the complainant with any malafide intention to harass and black-mail the Op as alleged by the Ops in their reply. As no evidence has been tendered by the Ops to establish such plea.

13.                    In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed against Ops for the deficient services rendered to the complainant and for the irregularities committed in preparing the food articles in question under unhygienic conditions.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed against the Ops with the following directions:-

                        a)     To refund an amount of Rs.30/- being the cost of product/item in question.

                        b)     To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing him harassment for their deficient services and also for thrusting litigation.

                        c)     To pay and deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/-, being penalty for the irregularity committed, with Deputy Commissioner-cum-President, District Council for Child Welfare, Bal Bhawan, Bay No.19, Sector-14, Panchkula, against valid receipt (copy of which shall also be deposited with the office of this Forum) within stipulated period as mandated hereunder).

 

  This order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order failing which the Ops shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the compensation as well as from the date of filing of this complaint till realization, apart from complying with the directions as at sub para (a) above.  In case the Ops fails to deposit the penalty amount with institute, the Incharge/Head of that institute shall be at liberty to take due course of law which it deem proper, in order to recover the awarded penal amount.

Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties as well as to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-President, District Council for Child Welfare, Bal Bhawan, Bay No.19, Sector-14, Panchkula free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

16.11.2017        JAGMOHAN SINGH     ANITA KAPOOR     DHARAM PAL

                        MEMBER                   MEMBER             PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                   

                                                                                                DHARAM PAL

                                                        PRESIDENT