District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.65/2020.

 Date of Institution: 29.01.2020.

Date of Order: 07.07.2022.

Pankul Bharti son of Shri Ved Parkash, resident of House No.13, Village Daultabad, Sector-16A, Faridabad.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                M/s. Amul, 24,, 1, D Block Road, D-Block, Janakpuri Industrial area, Janakpuri, New Delhi – 110058, through its authorized person.

2.                Shree Ram Dairy, Shop No.61, HUDA Market, Sector-16A, Faridabad through its authorized person.

                                                                    …Opposite parties……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

PRESENT:                    Sh.  Narender Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.  Kapil Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.1.

                             Opposite party No.2 ex-parte vide order dated 26.10.2021.

ORDER:  

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that   the complainant has purchased a curd of 400 gm from opposite party No.2 on 04.01.2020 but the opposite party No.2 did not give the bill of that above said curd.  After purchasing the above said curd the complainant opened the packet in his house and found that the curd was not properly prepared and there was curd water full of smell.  Opposite party No.2 had sold the defective product to the complainant willingfully.  The complainant again visited to opposite party No.2 and requested him to replace the above said packet of curd but opposite party No.2 denied the request of the complainant and to refund the money of curd.  When the complainant reiterated to do so then opposite party No.2 also threatened and intimate the complainant and opposite party No.2 also said that “Jo karna hai kar le, tere jaise bahul ghumte hai, chala ja nahi to pitega bahul.”.  On the same day at about 2.48 p.m. the complainant called the customer care number of opposite party No.1 and registered a complaint but opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed towards the request of the complainant.  The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 7.1.2020  but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:

a)                  pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                 pay Rs.11,000/ - as litigation expenses .

2.                Opposite party No.1  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that   Opposite party No.1 was marketer of the product  Dahi. Opposite party No.2 was in the market from several decades & had earned  great reputation with its customers for quality products.  The complainant had alleged that the curd was not properly prepared and there was curd water full of smell but never tried to contact the opposite party No.1 and its authorized dealer or Delhi office who was locally available at Delhi.  Even the packet of the product contains complete address/telephone no. of manufacturer/processor/marketer wherein the complainant can contact in case of any consumer complaint but from the perusal of the document sit was absolutely clear that the complainant neither approached the Delhi office nor contact the manufacturing location.  Even the attached document confirms that the complainant did not made any complaint before the Food Safety Standards Authority  who was the apex authority in case of any deficiency in any food product.  The said authority too was having was head quarter at Delhi itself.  From the aforesaid nit was abundantly clear that the complaint of the complainant was vague & devoid of any justification & had been filed with the sole intention to malign the hard earned reputation of the answering opposite party & get illegal gain.  It was the case opposite party No.1 that in the absence of valid bill towards the purchase of the product allegedly having some foreign substance it was difficult to trace the authencity product.   Further, in the absence of the valid bill it was also difficult to verify the correctness/genuineness of the product. Opposite party No.1denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Case had been called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. It was already 2.30 p.m. Waited sufficiently. No more wait was justified.  Hence, opposite party No.2 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.10.2021.

4.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

5.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

6.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – M/s. Amul and others with the prayers to: a)         pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c)        pay Rs.11,000/ - as litigation expenses .

                   To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shri Pankul Bharti, Ex.C-1 – legal notice, Ex.C-2 – postal receipt,, Ex.C-3 –Adhaar card.

                   On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly

agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1, Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shir Tushar Badheria, representative on behalf of Amul/Gujarat Cooperative Milk, Marketing Federation Limited having its zonal office at 24/1, institutional Rea, De Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi.

7.                After going through the evidence led by the parties ,the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as no authentic proof /Bill of purchase has been attached by the complainant with his complaint .Hence, the complainant is not a consumer as provided under Section 2(1) (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act.

8.                Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed.  Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced on:  07.07.2022                                 (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.