IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated, the 30^th day of September  2022.

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt. Bindhu R.  Member

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 179/2019 (Filed on 30-10-2019)

Petitioner                                          :         Kurian K.K.

                                                                   Proprietor,

                                                                   M/s. Kuruvinakunnel Herbal

Products,

S/o. Kuruvila K.G.

Residing at Kuruvinakkunnel

House, Edamattom P.O.

Kottayam – 686578.

(Adv. Boby George Kurian)

                                                                             Vs.

Opposite party                                 : (1)  M/s. Kedison Expellers,

                                                                   Kanjirappally P.O.

                                                                   Kottayam – 686507

                                                                   Rep. by K.S. Abraham,

                                                                   S/o. late K.D. Sebastian,

                                                                   Managing Partner of Kedison

Exprellers,  Residing at

Kunnumpurathu House,

Podimattom, Parathodu P.O.

Kottayam – 686 512.

    (2) K.S. Abraham,

          S/o. late K.D. Sebastian,

          Managing Partner,

          Kedison Expellers,

          Kanjirappally P.O.

          Kottayam – 686507

Residing at Kunnumpurathu

House,

Podimattom, Parathodu P.O.

Kottayam – 686 512.

       (Adv. For Op1 and 2, Adv. D. Zaibo)

O  R  D  E  R

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

The complaint is filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

The brief of the complaint is as follows. The petitioner is the sole proprietary concern named M/S Kuruvinakunnel Herbal Products and is engaged in the manufacturing of Herbal Products. The complainant is earning his livelihood from the said business. The complainant had purchased 120 kgs of coconut oil from the first opposite party as per Invoice no.19-20/79 dated 31.07.19. for an amount of Rs.18900/-. The coconut oil is one of the raw materials used for the preparation of Herbal products. While on the preparation of the herbal Products the coconut oil purchased from the opposite parties was used, then it started bubbling and was getting out of the vat used for the preparation of the herbal product. The whole process was immediately shut down. The complainant took some coconut oil left in the cans and sent it as sample to Sree Muruka Pharmaceuticals for testing on 2/8/2019.As per their report the sample given for testing does not match coconut oil. And it smells like peanut oil. On receiving the test report from sree Muruka Pharmaceuticals the matter was informed to the opposite party. But they did not agree to reimburse the loss occurred to the complainant. The coconut oil is the main ingredient in the preparation of the herbal products and if the petitioner used adulterated oil, it shall affect the goodwill of the business of the petitioner and also the complainant has to face the consequences due to the adverse effect on the use of the herbal products by the customers.

On admission of the complaint copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties.

The opposite parties appeared and filed joint version. In the version filed by the opposite parties it is claimed that the complainant is not a consumer as per consumer protection Act 1986 as the complainant is carrying on a commercial activity for profit. The complainant had visited the factory of the opposite party and inspected the products and was satisfied with the quality of the product. Upon satisfaction of the product the complainant had purchased the product. The product was filled in the containers brought by the complainant.

The complainant had stated that while manufacturing the herbal products they found something wrong and took samples from the residual oil left in the can and sent it for testing. There is every chance for getting the product left in the can to be adulterated. The alleged report cannot be relied upon. No defective goods were supplied to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibit A1 to Exhibit A6. The complainant was examined as PW1 and another witness as PW2.

On the basis of the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant, version of the opposite parties and evidence on record we would like to frame the following points.

1 Whether the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties

2 Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties

3 If so, what are the reliefs and costs?

Point No,1

According to the complaint the complainant is the owner of sole proprietary concern M/S Kuruvinakkunnel Herbal Products and the complainant is earning his lively hood from the said business. The complainant had deposed as PW1 before the commission and on cross-examination by the opposite party he had deposed that he is running a proprietary concern,3 types of herbal products by name M cure, B sore and Q burn were the manufactured products. There is no export and sales outside the state. The sale is within Kerala. Thus, it is evident from the evidence of the complainant that the complainant is depending on this business for earning his livelihood. Thus, as per section 2 (1) (d) of the consumer protection Act the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party. Point No.1 is found in favor of the complainant.

Point No.2 & 3

Ongoing through the complaint, Proof affidavit of the complainant and version of the opposite party it is clear that the complainant had purchased 120 kg of coconut oil from the opposite party on 31.07.19 for a consideration of Rs.18900/- for using in the preparation of herbal products. During the preparation of the herbal products when the said coconut oil was used, it started bubbling and was getting out of the vat used for the preparation of the herbal products. Exhibit A1 is the Invoice with No.19-20/79 dated 31.07.2019 issued by the opposite party for the sale of 120 kg of coconut oil to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.18900/-.

Exhibit A2 is the Test report from Sree Muruka pharmaceuticals, Trivandrum.

The result is

Sample: coconut oil with following specifications

color: clear  Odour: smell like peanut oil., Touch: oily.

Iodine value and saponification value are not matching for coconut oil.

Ext A3 is a purchase bill dated 30.07.2019 for the purchase of raw materials for

an amount of Rs.14650/-.

Ext A4 is the voucher dated31.07.2019 for an amount of Rs.2000/- being the wages paid to the employees.

The witness PW2 the chemist in the Sree Muruka Pharmaceuticals deposed before the commission that he had issued the Ext. A2 Test report and as per the report the coconut oil is adulterated. The Test was conducted as per range given in The Indian standard 542-part 1968. There is range difference in Iodine concentration and SAP value.

From the above discussed evidence, we do not find any reason to disbelieve

the evidence of PW2 and Ext A2 test report. As per Ext A2 Test report . The Odour of the oil “smell like Peanut oil” and Iodine value is only 3.48 whereas Iodine value for coconut oil ranges from 7 to 11 and Saponification value of the

given oil is 240.18 whereas saponification value for coconut oil ranges not less

than 250.Hence it is clear that the oil given by the opposite party as per Ext A1

invoice as coconut oil does not have the requisite parameters for the coconut oil. It is evident from the above discussion that opposite parties had given defective/adulterated oil to the complainant as per Ext A1. The act of the opposite parties in giving adulterated oil as coconut oil to the complainant is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the loss sustained to the complainant. Point No 2 &3 are found in favor of the complainant, we allow the complaint and pass the following orders.

1.  The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.18,900/- with 9% interest from 30/10/2019, the date of filing of this complaint.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation with
3.  

The order shall be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order in default the amounts will carry 6% interest per annum till realization.

      Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30^th day of September, 2022

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                  Sd/-  

Sri. Manulal V.S. President             Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu R.  Member                Sd/-  

Appendix

Witness from the side of complainant

Pw1 – Kurian K.K

Pw2 – Sinju Sathya

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

A1 – Invoice No.19-20/79 issued by opposite party

A2 – Test report from Sree Muruka Pharmaceuticals`

A3 – Bill No.11 dtd.30-07-19 by Kuruvinakunnel Herbal Product

A4 – Voucher dtd.31-07-19 by Kuruvinakunnel Herbal Product (Subject to

         proof)

A4 (a) – Voucher dtd.31-07-19 by Kuruvinakunnel Herbal Product

A5 – Copy of lawyers notice dtd.27-08-19

A6 – Reply notice dtd.03-09-19

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

Nil

                                                                                             By Order

                                                                                          Sd/-  

                                                                                  Assistant Registrar