BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.325 of 2014

Date of Instt. 15.09.2014

Date of Decision :24.03.2015

R.S.Rai son of Pritam Singh R/o 87 Defence Colony, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Arunima Enterprises, 190-C, HP Side Industrial Area, Baddi (HP) through its Prop./Director.

2. M/s Chhabra Agencies, Jail Road, Jalandhar City, Distributors for Kesh Nikhar Soap, through its Prop.

3. Pesco Industries, Industrial Plot No.49, Sector-1, Parwanoo(HP), through its Prop./Director.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under section 1 2 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.SS Khullar Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Jaspal Singh Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Sh.Anil Sabarwal Adv., counsel for OP No.3.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is consumer of opposite parties as he is using the soap namely Kesh Nikhar manufactured by opposite parties No.1 and 3 and distributed/supplied by opposite party No.2. The complainant is using the soap in question since long for washing his head hairs as the he is a Sikh gentle man of age about 74 years. Earlier there was no problem to the complainant by use of the soap in question and the problem started to complainant in the month of March 2014 when on the use of the soap in question sold by opposite party No.2 and manufactured by the opposite party No.1 by which the hairs of head of the complainant stuck together and could not be separated even by use of warm water or even after the hairs dried up and when complainant combed his hairs the itching and scratching started and rashes appeared on the scalp of the complainant and much hairs from the head of complainant were removed and the soap in question used by complainant also turned pulpy and cracks appeared on its. When the rashes and itching did not stop in the hairs on the head of the complainant then complainant was forced to visit a doctor, who after examining the complainant told that it was all due to some chemical effect of the ingredients of the soap used to wash the hairs by the complainant and the doctor prescribed some medicines and advised him not to use the said soap again and the treatment of complainant by doctor continued for about 10 to 15 days which costs about Rs.500/- to the complainant and the complainant has also lost his some hairs. The complainant on 10.4.2014 served registered notice to opposite party No.1 regarding the same and even posted reminder to them on 29.4.2014, but there was no response, then complainant watched soaps wrappers minutely and found that there are two parties who are manufacturing the soap of same name i.e Kesh Nikhar, then complainant collected bill from their sellers of both type of soap and then after complainant posted registered notice dated 6.8.2014 to give information to opposite party No.3 who manufactured the soap in question earlier used by complainant that there is an other manufacturer i.e opposite party No.1 who through opposite party No.2 is selling the soap of the same name and style of Kesh Nikhar but till date opposite party No.3 has not replied the letter which means he too connived with the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and all are jointly playing malpractices and unfair trade practices and they are cheating the complainant and general innocent public at large for their unlawful gains while causing mental, physical and monitory losses to the complainant and general public and the complainant assess his loss suffered to the tune of Rs.20,000/- which he is claiming from the opposite parties even through he suffered a lot. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for Rs.20,000/- as compensation.

2. Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In their written reply, opposite parties No.1 and 2 denied that the problem started to the complainant by use of the soap in question in the month of March 2014. They further pleaded that product purchased by the complainant does not belong to them. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In its separate written reply, opposite party No.3 pleaded that complainant had attached photocopies of two cash memos bearing No.473 dated 6.7.2014 regarding purchase of one Kesh Nikhar issued by Rattan General Store and one cash memo No.4488 dated 8.7.2014 of 4 pieces of one alleged soap for Rs.50/- which also relates to some other soap not to the Kesh Nikhar manufactured by replying opposite party. As such, complainant is not consumer of replying opposite party. It further denied that rashes and itching started to the complainant when he used the soap in question sold by opposite party No.2. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. . In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and Ex.RW2/B alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard learned counsels for the parties and further gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of complainant and opposite parties No.1 & 2.

7. The complainant has placed on record one prescription slip issued by Satyam Clinic which is dated 1.4.2014 wherein it is mentioned that allergic disease of skin and eyes. The complainant has also placed on record cash memo dated 6.7.2014 Ex.C10 regarding purchase of Kesh Nikhar soap for Rs.15 from M/s Rattan General Store and further retail invoice dated 8.7.2014 Ex.C11 regarding purchase of Kesh Nikhar soap. So both the cash memo and retail voucher regarding purchase of Kesh Nikhar soap are dated 6.7.2014 and 8.7.2014 and whereas as per prescription slip Ex.C1 which is dated 1.4.2014 the complainant was having allergic disease of skin and eyes. So it means that complainant was having allergic disease either on 1.4.2014 or before it. Complainant has not produced any cash memo or retail voucher regarding purchase of Kesh Nikhar soap prior to the date of 1.4.2014. Cash memo Ex.C10 dated 6.7.2014 and retail invoice dated 8.7.2014 are of subsequent date. So in this view of matter, it can not be held that the allergic reaction to the complainant was on account of use of Kesh Nikhar soap as alleged by him, it might be due to some other reasons. Moreover, he has not produced any purchase voucher or cash memo prior to the date of 1.4.2014 when he went to doctor and complained of allergic reaction or disease. Moreover, the complainant has not got the soap in question analyzed from any laboratory to prove that it was substandard or caused allergic reaction to the complainant. There could not be number of reasons for allergic disease to the complainant. He has not led any reliable evidence to show that allergy suffered by the complainant on 1.4.2014 or before that date was due to use of Kesh Nikhar soap. It may be mentioned here again that he has not produced any cash memo or retail invoice regarding purchase of Kesh Nikhar soap prior to the date of 1.4.2014 when he visited Satyam Clinic complaining of allergic reaction.

7. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

24.03.2015 Member Member President