Punjab

StateCommission

FA/863/2013

Sonu Maheshwari - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shree Balaji Trading Co. & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

Ravish Bansal

12 Mar 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No. 863 of 2013

                                                           

                                    Date of institution: 13.8.2013  

                             Date of Decision: 12.03.2015

 

Sonu Maheshwari, aged 32 years s/o Sh. Raj Kumar, r/o #4395, Kikar Bazaar, Bathinda.

…..Appellant/Complainant

                                      Versus

1. M/s Shree Balaji Trading Co. Aba Basti, Bathinda 151 001
2. M/s Paira Raj Kumar, Karyana Merchants, Sikri Bazar, Bathinda.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

First Appeal against the order dated 10.5.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

    Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant             :         None.

          For respondent No.1        :         Ex.-parte

          For respondent No.2        :         Sh. Ashish Grover, Advocate

 

 

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellant/complainant(hereinafter referred as “the complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 10.5.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda(hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No.510 dated 10.10.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed vide which the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as ‘the OPs’) was directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 500/- and further directed to deposit Rs. 1,000/- in cash in the Legal Aid Fund account of this Forum and Op No. 2 was further directed to pay Rs. 500/- as compensation to the complainant.

2.                The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the Ops on the allegations that OP No. 1 was manufacturer of ‘Purnima’ Brand Double Filtered Sarson Oil and the complainant had purchased one bottle of the Oil of this brand from OP No. 2 manufactured by OP No. 1 on 6.10.2012 vide bill No. 3591 dated 6.10.2012. However, when the complainant took the said Oil to his house for domestic use, in the morning it was found that it look like a bottle of either Vanaspati Ghee/soap half freezed or wax likes substance, which is total reckless negligence on the part of Op Nos. 1 & 2 while manufacturing this type of oil and containing foreign substance. It was alleged that on account of the act of the Ops, the complainant suffered financial torture to the tune of Rs. 95,000/-. The complaint was filed against the Op to pay compensation of Rs. 95,000/- alongwith cost of the bottle of Rs. 80/- alongwith interest @ 18% and also pay Rs. 22,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                The complaint was contested by the Ops. Op No. 1 in its reply took the legal objections that the complainant had no cause of action or locus-standi against this Op to file the complaint; complaint had been filed just to black-mail and harass the OP. The Sarson Oil for which complaint has been filed was never sold by this Op to OP No. 2, which is spurious Sarson Oil manufactured and sold by some enemy of this Op by using his band name and pasting the label of brand name and address and same ingredients as those of OP; the complainant was not a consumer qua this Op; intricate questions of law and facts were involved, therefore, the matter cannot be decided in the summary proceedings and it be relegated to the Civil Court and that the complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant, therefore, it be dismissed with special costs. On merits also the same averments were reiterated and it was submitted that the complaint was without any merit and it be dismissed.

4.                OP No. 2 in its reply took the preliminary objections that the complainant had no cause of action against this Op; the complaint is malafide and filed to  black-mail the OP, the Sarson Oil for which the complaint was filed was not purchased by this OP from OP No. 1 as this OP does not sell this Sarson Oil manufactured by Op No. 1, complainant was not a consumer, intricate questions of law and facts were involved and the complaint was false and frivolous to the knowledge of this OP. On merits, the same averments were reiterated and it was further stated that this OP had purchased Sarson Oil of Murli Brand, manufactured by Bathinda Chemicals Ltd., Bathinda, which was sold to the complainant. It was further submitted that the complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.

5.                The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.

6.                In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, bill Ex. C-2, Sarson Oil Bottle Ex. C-3, news paper cutting Ex. C-4, application for registration of FIR Ex. C-5, affidavit of Ved Parkash Ex. C-6. On the other hand, opposite party No. 1 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Puneet Nevatia Ex. R-1, Form-C Ex. R-2, Form VAT-4 Ex. R-3, certificate of registration Ex. R-4, Sale register Ex. R-5, retain invoice Ex. R-6, bottle of Jai Maa Mustard Oil Ex. R-7, Bottle of Purnima Mustard Oil Ex. R-8. OP No. 2 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sham Lal, Prop. Ex. R-9.

7.                After going through the allegations in the complaint, written replies filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was allowed as referred above.

8.                In the appeal, the appellant/complainant has submitted that in the complaint a compensation of Rs. 95,000/- was asked for alongwith cost of the bottle of Sarson Oil and litigation expenses but the amount allowed by the learned District Forum is just Rs. 1,000/-, which is too inadequate and requested for enhancement of the compensation.

9.                As is clear from the facts of the case, the bottle of the Sarson Oil which was purchased from Op No. 2 was found to be spurious alleged to be manufactured by OP No. 1 and these averments were found to be correct, which has not been challenged by the OP by filing any cross appeal. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it should be in consonance with the damage received by the complainant. No doubt that this Legislature is a Welfare Legislature to protect the rights of the consumer but the Legislature is not to enrich the parties taking benefit from this Legislature. In case against payment of Rs. 80/-, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- has been awarded to the complainant from the Ops and further Ops have also been directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- in the Legal Aid Fund. Therefore, considering the loss suffered by the complainant, adequate compensation had been allowed by the learned District Forum. The complainant has not explained how she had suffered a loss of Rs. 95,000/- as alleged in the complaint.

10.              None was present on behalf of the appellant to convince how the compensation awarded by the District Forum is inadequate.

11.              In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

12.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 5.3.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

13.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

                                                                            (Jasbir Singh Gill)

                                                                                                    Member

 

March            12, 2015.                                                      (Harcharan Singh Guram)

as                                                                                                Member