THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 367 of 14
Date of Institution : 09.07.2014
Date of Decision : 18.05.2015
Sarabjit Singh S/o Charanjit Singh Village and Post Office Bhitewad, Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Mangat Ram, Robin Kirayana Store, Rania Road, Lopoke, Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar
Kulwinder Singh son of Bhan Singh, Babbi Kirayana Store, Lopoke Road, Chogawan, Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt.Ltd (Frito-Lay Division) NI : Village Channo, Patiala-Sangrur Road, P.O. Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur Pin 148026 , Punjab
The Consumer Services Manager, PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT.LTD (Frito-Lay Division). P.O. Box 27, DLF Qutab Enclave, Phase I, Gurgaon 122002, Haryana
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : None
For the opposite parties No.1 & 2 : Ex-parte
-2-
For opposite parties No. 3 & 4 : Sh. Kamal Kishore Thakur,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Sh. Sarabjit Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased four packets of Lays Magic Masala from Robin Kirayana Store. According to the complainant when he opened the packets, he was surprised to see that the packets were empty. Complainant has alleged that he opened the three packets and when he found all were empty , he did not open the fourth packet to show it to the shopkeeper from where he had purchased the same . On 8.7.2014 he approached the owner of Robin Kirayana Store, Mangat Ram, who told the complainant that he has no fault in it as he had purchased the same from Babbi Kirayana Store. Complainant has alleged that due to this, complainant has suffered harassment and he prayed for justice and compensation of Rs. 90000/-.
2. On notice, opposite parties No.3 & 4 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant has not filed the supporting annexures/documents with the complaint , as such the same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has not produced on record any evidence to prove that he has purchased the packets of chips from the retailer and the retailer had purchased the packets of chips in question from the authorized distributor of opposite party No.3 It was submitted that complainant has not mentioned any date of manufacture and batch number which raises doubt that the packets in question were purchased from open grey market just to harass the opposite parties No.3 & 4 and to get undue benefit. It was submitted that the packaging machines used by them are imported machines with in-built accurate weighing load cells. The accuracy of in-built weighing load cell is upto 0.5 g with auto control on weighing process. All weighing machines are also regularly stamped by Weights and Measures Department for its accuracy. It was further submitted that complainant has made a false, frivolous and concocted story about the purchase of the said packets of Lays. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not appear despite service, as such they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.9.2014.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2, copy of photograph Ex.C-3, copy of newspaper cutting Ex.C-4.
5. Opposite parties No.3 & 4 tendered affidavit of Ms.Nidhi Sudan, Authorized signatory Ex.OP3,4/1
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the opposite parties No.3 & 4 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the complainant and ld.counsel for opposite parties No.3 & 4.
7. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, the case of the complainant is that he purchased four packets of Lays Magic Masala on 7.7.2014 from opposite party No.1. When the complainant opened the packets at home, he found that all the packets were totally empty. He opened three packets which were found totally empty and he did not open the fourth one which also appeared to be empty, so that the same packet was kept as evidence. On the next day i.e. 8.7.2014 in the morning the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and told the entire story, but the opposite party No.1 replied that he received these packets as they were, so it is the company, who is responsible. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
8. Whereas the case of opposite parties No.3 & 4 is that the complainant never approached opposite parties No.3 & 4 nor he produced the supporting annexures/documents to opposite parties No.3 & 4. The complainant should prove that he has purchased the packets of chips from the retailer and the retailer had purchased the packets of chips in question from the authorized distributor of opposite party No.3. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the packets of chips in question in any way belong to opposite parties No.3 & 4. Opposiste parties No.3 & 4 vehementally denied that the complainant purchased any goods for consideration which were manufactured by opposite parties No. 3 & 4 nor he has hired any services for consideration from opposite parties No.3 & 4. The complainant has also not mentioned in the complaint any date of manufacturing, batch number which raises doubt that the packets in question were purchased from open grey market just to harass the opposite parties No.3 & 4 and to get undue benefit. Ld.counsel for opposite parties No. 3 & 4 submitted that the complainant has miserably failed to make out any case. The complainant has failed to prove on record batch number, date of manufacturing more so to prove that the said packets were manufactured and marketed by opposite parties No. 3 & 4. He, therefore, submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties No.3 & 4 qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove on record the batch number, date of manufacturing of the packets which he had allegedly purchased from Robin Kirayana Store i.e. opposite party No.1, who allegedly stated that he purchased the said packets from opposite party No.2 Babbi Kirayana Store. But the complainant neither produced the packets in question nor mentioned the batch number, date of manufacturing /date of expiry of the said packets of Lays Magic Masala allegedly purchased from opposite party No.1 by the complainant on 7.7.2014. the complainant also failed to produce on record of this Forum, the said packets, so that the same could be sent to Public Lab for its examination/test and put before opposite parties No.3 & 4 whether the products belong to their company or not. The complainant has also failed to produce on record any evidence from opposite parties No.1 & 2 as they did not contest the complaint and intentionally became ex-parte , in that eventuality the complainant should have produced the affidavits of opposite parties No.1 & 2 to prove that the complainant has purchased the said four packets of Lays Magic Masala from opposite party No.1 and that the opposite party No.1 had purchased the same from opposite party No.2. Only a slip Ex.C-2 has been produced by the complainant which is signed by one Mangat Ram. But the complainant has failed to prove on record that it is signed by Mangat Ram i.e. proprietor of opposite party No.1.
10. Consequently we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record that the four packets , allegedly purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 are manufactured by opposite parties No.3 & 4, what is their batch number, what is their date of manufacturing, lot number etc ? So we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
11. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
18.05.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
