Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara. President.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated,Bolangir the 16th day of October 2015.
C.C.No. 57 Of 2014.
Raghunath Rath, son of late Nabin Kumar Rath, Resident of
Raghunath Para,Titilagarh, P.O/P.S-Titilagarh, Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.M/s. Samaleswari Acqua Industries, At- Chancher, P.O.Utkela,
District- Kalahandi.
2.Sri Rajin Kumar Jain, M/s.Samaleswari Acqua Industries.
At-Swadhinpada (Adjacent to medical store) Titilagarh.
P.S- Titilagarh, Dist- Bolangir.
3.Bureau of IndiaStandards Office, At- Plot No.62-63,
Ganga Nagar,Unit-VI Bhubaneswar.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv.for the complainant- None.
Adv.for the O.P.1 - Sri R.K.Purohit.
Adv.for the O.P.2 - Sri R.K.Mishra & D.K.Mishra.
Adv.for the O.P.3 - None.
Date of filing of the case- 19.08.2014
Date of order - 16.10.2015
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara,President.
The complaint is that complainant purchased 4 packets which contains 100 nos of water pouches on dt.27.07.2014. Averred the pouched mineral water is manufactured by Samaleswari Acqua Industries, Chancher,Utkela, Kalahandi which was purchased in consideration of Rs 240/- in total.
2. Complained 5 nos of pouches does not contain or carry the standard marking, the packaged drinking pouches was not marked as required under BIS specification and other marking as required under the standards of weights and measures rule and other rules framed there under. The grouse is that in absence of the aforesaid markings, the pouch is unsafe and did not meet to the standard as used to be. Praying non issuance of receipt and not maintaining proper standard is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.
3. In pursuant to notice, the O.P.1 appear and contended and denying the entire gamut of story. Admitting O.P.No.1 is manufacturer of water pouch in the name & style Baisali Acqua at village-Chancher Dist- Kalahandi. No distributor has been appointed. The pouch belongs other vendor companies in the question brand name. Averred the manufacturer obeys BIS guidelines so unfair trade practice or deficiency service dose arise to note.
4. O.P.2 though appeared and prefers not to file anything irrespective service of notice.
5. O.P.3 made the version, stating it is mandatory to follow marking clause-Batch No & date of manufacturing by the licenser.
6. Preliminary inspection which was carried out on 06.12.2005, the firm has necessary facility to mark Batch No and date of Manufacturer in bottle and PE pouch. Last year two surveillance inspections dt.19.06.2013 and Dt.07.01.2014 were carried out and verified all the requirements and found to be satisfactory. Consequently upon the receipt of letter from forum a surveillance inspection was carried out on 13.09.2014, wherein interalia, the performance of the firm was found to be satisfactory. It was verified that the firm was marking batch No and date of manufacturer on the product (250 ml PE pouch)
7. Heard and perused the record.
8. Perusal of record rfeveals,O.P.1 is the manufacturer and denied the product is off bad quality and sourced from outside manufacturing unit, hence the marking has been mixed up in the 100 nos packet, but did not elaborate the factory being a manufacture, does not promote /sell his entire production without any sales network, which sounds absurd.
9. O.P.3 being public institution has filed the version in casual manner or statement’s sake. It is rule, as per any allegation the product to be impounded and made examination before the petitioner or taking petition into account. The product placed before forum neither moved nor examined as per the law.
10. O.P.2 although has not appeared and did not file any written submission which is evidently a collusion one. The vendor being in justice should respond with clean hand to avoid any aspersion on his involvement. We convinced the O.P.2 is in league with O.P.1 has hatched design and dictating remotely as the submission goes with. Hence the O.P.2 the vendor has procured the branch product and mixed up the non brand product ( 250 ml pouches) in the packet to earn his profit, which is unscrupulous exploitation of consumer and continuation of unfair trade practice u/s. 2(r ) (1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. In which it is determined unidentifiable number of consumers are suffered and duped.
ORDER.
The case is allowed on contest and the O.P.2 is hereby directed to deposit a sum of Rs 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in “State Consumer Welfare Fund” u/s.14 (1-b) forthwith, within 30 days of this order and failing which @ 12% interest will accrue on the same from the date of purchase till realization. And also pay a sum of Rs 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand) only, to the complainant/petitioner as compensation towards the loss, harassment and mental agony sustained, inclusive of legal expenses within above said time frame, failing which applicable default interest as above will be charged till realization.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015.
(G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
