Punjab

Patiala

CC/14/270

Rajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Madan PLrovision Store - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

22 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/14/270 of 30.9.2014

                                      Decided on: 22.04.2015

 

Rajinder Singh S/o Late Jaswant Singh resident of 7-B, Majihtia Enclave, Patiala-147005. Tel No.0175-2208601, Mob 9592035595.      

 

                                                                  ….....Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Madan Provision Store, Majithia Enclave, Patiala, crossing 24 No.Phatak.

2.       The Consumer Services Manager, Pepsico India Holdings Pvt.Ltd Fritolay Division P.O.Box No.27 DLF Qutab Enclave Phase 1 Gurgaon-1220022 Haryana

                                                                  ….......Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member                               

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:     In person

For Op No.2:                 Sh.Amit Jain,Advocate         

                                      

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is alleged by the complainant that five packets of LAYS Classic Salted, manufactured by Op no.2 were purchased vide bill dated 15.9.2014 from Madan Provision, Store, Majithia Enclave , Patiala alongwith other items. One of the packets of LAYS was found to be less in weight in as much as it weighed only 12gms as against the net weight of 20gms printed on the packet bearing batch No.N 152A , manufactured on 20 August,2014.
2. It is also the case of the complainant that already this Forum has fined the OP in complaint no.364 of 2013 on account of the weight of the  of KURKURE having been found to be less. The weight was found to be 21gms as against 52gms as printed on the packet. In the previous complaint, the op had taken the plea that they follow the strict quality control programme and they have got sophisticated imported weighing machines , which do not allow even a weight less than one gram to be un noticed  in their checking system.
3. It is further averred that the op is working under stress. They must be packing some other product weighing 12 gms but the product was changed with the rapper but the weighing command to the machine was not changed and resultantly all the packets weighed less and sent to the market under batch No.N152 A manufactured on 20 August,2014.
4. It is also the plea taken up by the complainant that the packet is containing the product of the value of Rs.5/- but the company sells the same to crores of  the consumers and thus they have adopted an unfair trade practice. All the consumer spread over cannot come together to file a single complaint and therefore, the complainant claims Rs.2lac by way of compensation as a deterrent lesson  to the Ops so that the Ops may not repeat the practice again. Hence the complaint.
5. The cognizance of the complaint was taken against Op no.2 only. On notice, the Op appeared and filed the written version having raised certain preliminary objections, interalia , that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( for short the Act); that there is no allegation made by the complainant that he had purchased the goods for any consideration from the Op and no proof regarding the purchase of the product  to have been manufactured by the Op has been produced; that the Forum is not competent to entertain and decide the matter involved in the complaint as the same involves disputed questions of fact and only the Civil court is competent to decide the same; that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to have been filed with a malafide intention to compel the Op to succumb  to the illegal demands of the complainant. The complainant has indulged in malicious prosecution, speculative litigation and adventurism aimed at harassing,  blackmailing and intimidating the Op and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as the complainant has not shown anything to show that the packet of LAYS was purchased within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. No cause of action had arisen against the OP within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is denied by the op that the packet of LAYS was purchased by the complainant for a consideration and therefore, he is not a consumer. It is denied that the OP fleeces  the consumers in crores and indulges in unfair trade practice. It is also the plea taken up by the Op that it is making a use of the imported packaging machines with inbuilt accuracy weighing load cells and the accuracy of the  inbuilt weighing load  cells is 0.5g with auto control of weighing process. All the weighing machines are also regularly stamped by Weights and Measures departments for their accuracy. Apart from the said system of weighing process, the Op has got a strong on-line accuracy control checks consisting of manual weight checks  every half hourly in respect of each machine. Electronic balances have readability of 0.01gm with accuracy level of one gm with auto calibration facility.
6. It is also the plea taken up by the Op that the complainant has miserably failed to explain the amount of the compensation of two lacs claimed by him. It is not explained by the complainant that he has suffered any loss or injury. Under Section 14(d) of the Act,the compensation may be awarded to the consumer, if, it is proved that any such loss or injury has been suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the Op. After denouncing the other allegations of the complaint, going against the OP, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C2 and closed the evidence.
8. On the other hand, on behalf of the Op, it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Ms Nidhi Soodan, authorized signatory of the OP at Chandigarh and closed its evidence.
9. The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the complainant in person, the learned counsel for the OP and gone through the evidence on record.
10. Ex.C1 is the hand bill dated 15.9.2014 issued by Op no.1 regarding the sale of six items worth Rs.237/- including five packets of  LAYS salt worth Rs.50/-. It is the plea taken up by the Op that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act,  as it is not alleged by him that he purchased the goods for a consideration.The complainant has made a reference of bill dated 15.9.2014 and as discussed earlier, five packets of lays salt  for Rs.50/- are included in the amount of the entire bill of Rs.237/-. No evidence has been lead by the Op that the said bill Ex.C1 was not issued by Op no.1. Therefore, it cannot be said on  behalf of the contesting OP that the complainant had not purchased five packets of Lays salt for a consideration from Op no.1.
11. Now coming to the plea taken up by the complainant that one of the packets of Lays Salt weighed only 12 gms as against the net weight of 26 gms printed thereon in respect of batch No.N152A manufactured on 20.8.2014, in this regard, the op has not lead any evidence to rebut the averments made  by the complainant. Here, it may be noted that on 1.10.2014, when the complaint was presented before us, the complainant had produced the original packet bearing batch No.N152A , manufactured on 20.8.2014 alongwith one electronic digital weighing machine, which was found in order by us as the same started with zero. On weighing the packet, the weight of the same was found to be 13gms i.e. less by 13gms as the weight printed on the packet was 26 gms. The packet was retained by us contained in a cardboard box affixed with a paper seal  bearing the signatures of the President and the other Member Smt.Sonia and the same remained in custody with  the Ahlmad of this Forum. No attempt was made by the op to get the packet re- weighed. Today, on the request of the learned counsel for the Op, the cardboard box was opened and he examined the packet bearing the full particulars as noted above.
12. The very fact that the Op has not challenged the authenticity  of the weight of the product contained, would go to show that it was a  unfair trade practice on the part of the Op to have sold the product containing less weight, which in our case was 50% less.
13. It was submitted by the complainant Sh.Rajinder Singh that the op had sold the product bearing batch no.N152A manufactured on 20.8.2014 to millions of the consumers but his said argument is devoid of any force because he has not produced any other packet of Lays bearing batch No.N152A manufactured on 20.8.2014 containing less quantity.
14. It was also submitted by the complainant that the Op has been penalized in complaint No.364 of 2014 in respect of packet of Kurkure having contained the quantity weighing 26 gms as against 52 gms printed thereon and therefore, it was submitted by the complainant that the op is indulging in unfair trade practice without any impact of the previous order. The Op has not denied the previous complaint having been decided against it as per the averments made by the complainant.
15. On the other hand, it was simply submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant has failed to establish that the entire lot of batch no.N152A manufactured on 20.8.2014 contained the less quantity and therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the op in having contained the less weight of the product in the packet in question.
16. It was also submitted by Sh.Amit Jain, the learned counsel for the Op that the complainant has not established any nexus with the huge amount of the compensation of Rs.2lac claimed by him with the loss/injury suffered by him.
17. We have considered the submissions and are of the considered view that the act on the part of op no.2 in having contained less weight of 13gms in the packet of Lays Salt certainly amounts to an unfair trade practice because the Op  is a reputed company and as per the plea taken by it a highly sophisticated mechanism is used in packing the product and that the accuracy level is 0.01g as there is auto calibration facility in the mechanism but even then we have found a difference of 50% weight contained less in the packet as against the quantity printed on the packet. We can understand that a consumer cannot collect the evidence regarding the packets of the similar batch having contained the less quantity and therefore, we can not ignore the act of unfair trade practice on the part of the Op. A consumer having approached the Forum against the well reputed company has got to be compensated on account of the harassment and the loss suffered by him. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that  it would be reasonable to award the complainant with a compensation in a sum of Rs.30,000/- , which is inclusive of costs of the complaint. We accept the complaint accordingly against Op no.2 and direct the Op to make the payment of the same within a period of one month from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced

Dated:22.04.2015

 

                                      Neelam Gupta                         D.R.Arora

                             Member                                   President