Punjab

Sangrur

CC/184/2017

Bharat Bhushan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ganpati Sales - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sanjeev Garg

08 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                           

                                                Complaint No.    184

                                                Instituted on:      04.05.2017

                                                Decided on:       08.08.2017

 

Bharat Bhushan son of Shri Jagdish Rai, Randhawa Patti, Village Longowal, District Sangrur.

                                                …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     M/s. Ganpati Sales, Patti Randhawa, Longowal, District Sangrur through its proprietor.

2.     Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (Frito Lay Division) 38, DLF Corporate Park, S Block, Qutab Enclave, Phase-I, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana) through its Managing Director.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Sanjeev Garg, Adv.

For OP No.1              :               Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.

For OP no.2.             :               Shri S.S.Ratol, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Bharat Bhushan, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 16.03.2017, the complainant purchased 12 packets of Kurkure for Rs.102/- from Op number 1 vide bill number59 dated 16.3.2017. It is further averred that the weight of each Kurkure packet was 45 grams net, but one of the packet was empty, which is totally illegal and amounts to unfair trade practice.  The complainant immediately brought the matter to the notice of the OP number 2 and requested him to refund the amount of Rs.9/-, but nothing  happened. Thus, alleging  deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund him the amount of Rs.9/- so charged and further to pay him an amount of Rs.90,000/- along with interest and compensation as well as litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1,  it is admitted that the complainant had purchased 12 packets of Kurkure on 16.3.2017, but the remaining allegations have been denied in toto. It is further averred that the Op number 1 sold the product in sealed condition and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op number 1.

 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is wholly false, frivolous and vexatious in nature, that the complaint deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the packet in question has not been placed on record or not has been shown to the OP, that the complaint should be dismissed for want of necessary parties and that the complaint should be dismissed as the complainant has not explained or mentioned in the entire complaint how the Op is involved or related to the product in question.  It is further stated that the complainant is not a consumer under section 2(i)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits, it is stated that the product mentioned in the bill is different from the product mentioned in the present para of the complaint, hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Further it is submitted that the Op do not manufacture any product in the name and style of Navratan as mentioned in the bill.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 disputed original product Kurkure packet and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1  affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits  acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact of the complainant  that he had purchased 12 packets of Kurkure for Rs.102/- from Op number 1 vide bill number 59 dated 16.3.2017, as is evident from the copy of bill Ex.C-2 on record along with one other items shampoo. But, the grievance of the complainant is that he found one packet of Kurkure to be empty when he tried to use the same. The complainant has also produced on record the Kurkure packet in question, which is Ex.C-3, which clearly shows that the same is empty one.  There was no explanation/justification for the same from the side of OPs number 1 and 2 that why it was so.   Though the OPs number 1 and 2 have contended that the complainant never approached the Ops for replacement of the same, nor sought any refund of the same.  But, the fact remains that the OP number 2 packed and sold empty packet in the market, which is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Op number 2.  Reliance can also be placed on Ropar District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd. and another versus Ajay Sood 2005(2) CLT 593 (UT State Commission), wherein in a case of underweight of milk pouch, order of awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- was upheld by the UT State Commission Chandigarh.      Accordingly, we find deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP number 2 as the OP number 2 sold and packed the empty packet of Kurkure.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- only and further direct OP number 2 to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid account maintained with the District Forum, Sangrur.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records.

 

                Pronounced.

                August 8, 2017.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                       

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member

 

 

 

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                         Member