DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1024 of 2017
Date of institution: 01.11.2017 Date of decision : 09.12.2021
Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh.Kewal Kumar R/o H.No. 2253/1, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh (UT)
…….Complainant
Versus
- M/s Supreme Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd, through its Director Unit-II, C-181, Phase-VI, Focal Point , Ludhiana.
- Sh.Sanjay, Krishna Enclave, MC Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali.
……..Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member
Present: Complainant in person with counsel Shri Jagjeet Singh.
None for OP No.1.
OP No.2 ex-parte.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the OPs’ for short), on the ground that the CC had purchased curd/dahi of 170.00 Gms from OP No.2, but when the curd was measured it was found to be only 66 Gms. The CC immediately contacted the local police with regard to unfair trade practice and the police authorities asked OP No.2 to appear before them, but OP No.2 did not appear. Even DDR dated 07.11.2017 has been registered in police station, Zirakpur. Legal notice dated 07.11.2017 was also sent to the OPs but no reply has been given by the OPs till date.
Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 21,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. OP No.2 has chosen to remain ex-parte.
3. In reply, OP No.1 has raised a number of preliminary objections on the ground that the complaint is totally false and further the OP No.1 only supplies the curd to OP No.2, who is the retailer. It is alleged that the CC is Editor in Chief of the Magazine “The Complier” and had been approaching OP No.1 through mobile to give advertisement of the products of OP No.1 and has concocted a false story. OP No.1 has no knowledge regarding sale of any such packet of curd. Thus, alleging no deficiency on its part, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant has submitted his affidavit and documents Ex C-1 to Ex C-2. OP No.1 has not submitted any document in evidence.
4. We, have heard Ld .counsel for the complainant who came later and have gone through the record minutely.
5. During perusal of the entire file, we do not find any bill pertaining to the purchase of the curd. Further in the complaint itself, the CC has no where mentioned that how much amount he has paid for the purchase of the curd. Even the contents of the DDR are not in consonance with the allegations mentioned in the complaint.
6. In the absence of any cogent, reliable and trust worthy evidence on the record, we have no other alternative except to dismiss the present complaint.
7. In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the present complaint. However, no order is made as to cost. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be consigned to record room.
Announced
December, 09 2021
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
I agree.
(Gagandeep Gosal)
Member
