Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/403/2014

Manoj Kumar S/o Jagdish Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Shubham Sweets - Opp.Party(s)

Arvinder Kumar

31 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No.403 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 19.09.2014.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 31.08.2016

Manoj Kumar aged about 31 years son of Sh. Jagdish Sharma resident of Ganga Nagar Colony, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.

                                …Complainant.

 

                                                       Versus

1. M/s Shubham Sweets, Buria Chowk, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana through the partner Sh. Neetu.
2. Sh. Neetu son of Sh. Brij Pal, owner M/s Shubham Sweets, Buria Chowk, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.                                                                     

                                                                                                                                            ...Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Arvinder Kumar, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Respondent No.1 already ex-parte.  

              Sh. Randeep Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2.   

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Manoj Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 amended up to date.      

2.                   Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that on 16.09.2014, the complainant purchased 2 Kgs. of Laddoo from the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) and when the complainant asked for bill then Op No.2 issued a bill on a plain paper which is Annexure C-1. The complainant distributed half of the laddoos among the persons who were gathered in his house, everyone complained that there was some different taste of these laddoos and so everyone through laddoo after a bite and some of them felt stomach which was healed after the vomiting. The complainant also tasted one laddoo and found that these laddoos had a different taste and due to that complainant also felt stomach and had vomiting. After that wife and son of the complainant also consumed the laddoo and become ill. Upon this, the complainant informed the OpNo.2 that Laddoo sold by him are totally impure and are dangerous to human life. In this way, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and physical loss on account of illegal act of the OPs. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     In support of complaint, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and document such as copy of bill as Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

 4.                    Upon notice, OP No.1 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 14.11.2014.

5.                     OP No.2 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties as there is no person named Nitu son of Brijpal OP No.2, a similar complaint is also pending before this Forum in which Sunil Kumar son of Kalu Ram is complainant who is good friend and immediate neighbourer of the complainant and the present complaint has been filed on the instance of that Sunil Kumar against whom a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was filed by Mukesh brother of Op Sharwan Kumar in which Sunil Kumar has been convicted on 11.02.2015 and in order to pressurize and for settling the matter this complaint has been filed at the instance of Sunil Kumar as a counter blast and on merit controverted the plea taken by the complainant and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6                      Counsel for OP No.2 tendered into evidence certified copy of judgment of criminal complaint bearing No. 4014 decided on 11.02.2015 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act titled as Mukesh Kumar Versus Sunil Kumar as Annexure R-1, copy of registration certificate issued by department of Food and Drug Administration in the name of Shubham Sweet House as Annexure R-2, copy of driving license of Mukesh Kumar as Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

7                      We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8                      The only allegation mentioned in the complaint are that when the complainant as well as his family members and friends consumed the laddoo purchased from the shop of Op No.1 owned by OP No.2 then he found that there was some different taste of these laddoos and due to that complainant as well as his friends and family members felt stomach and healing whereas the complainant has totally failed to place on file any medical treatment obtained from any doctor/hospital for stomach as well as vomiting as alleged in his complaint. Even no affidavit on behalf of any friends or his family members has been placed on file to prove his version. Furthermore, from the copy of judgment Annexure R-1 it is clearly evident that brother of the OPs Mukesh Kumar has filed a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against complainant Sunil Kumar who is complainant in another case bearing No. 402 of 2014 titled as Sunil Kumar Versus M/s Shubham Sweets and who is also friend of the present complainant Manoj Kumar. So, from the perusal of copy of this judgment it is clearly evident that the present complaint has been filed against the OPs just due to counter blast whereas no cogent evidence has been filed by the complainant to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Mere filing of the bill Annexure C-1, it cannot be presumed that Laddoo purchased from the OPs were defective and not consumable. Moreover, complainant has mentioned in his complaint that Laddoo were having different taste. If a sweet is having different taste then it cannot be presumed that sweet was dangerous to human life and is not eatable.

9.                     In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove his case and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 31.08.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                    MEMBER