BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, REWARI.
Consumer Complaint No: 375 of 2012.
Date of Institution: 10.09.2012.
Date of Decision : 31.03.2015.
Kishan Lal son of Shri Hari Chand resident of 3268, Banjarwara, Rewari, 123401, Tehsil and Distt. Rewari.
…….Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Suraj Bhan Lilu Ram Jain ( Kirana Merchants) Sadar Bazar, Rewari, Tehsil and Distt. Rewari through its proprietor,
- Gillette India Limited, SPA 65-A, Bhiwadi Industrial Area, Bhiwadi-301019, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan through its General Manager.
…...Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act
Before: Shri Raj Kumar ………. …..………..PRESIDENT
Shri Kapil Dev Sharma……………….…MEMBER
Present : Shri R.K.Gera , Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Kanwar Singh Jain for the opposite party no.1.
Shri K.M.Tripathi, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Per Raj Kumar President
Factual matrix comprising the case of the complainant, shorn of details, is that the complainant purchased a wholesale pack of Gillette Wilkinson Sword Blades vide bill no. 4274 dated 23.8.2012 from opposite party no.1 manufactured by opposite party no.2 on payment of Rs. 160/-. It is averred that the packet contained 100 double Edge Blades containing 20 tucks of 5 blades each but on 24.8.2012, when the packet was opened, one blade of Gillette Wilkinson was found short in each packets containing three blades of Wilkinson Sword and one 7 o’clock super platinum blade. It is further alleged that this act amounts to cheating with the consumers. Hence, this complaint seeking refund of cost of Rs. 160/- and compensation alongwith litigation charges.
2) Opposite party no.1 in its reply though admitted that the complainant purchased the wholesale pack of 20 packets of the blades in question but the complainant never made any complaint regarding short of one blades in each tuck. It is alleged that the tuck is of five blades but one blade of 7 o’clock of super platinum blade cannot be put without any extra charges and it is available only on the scheme launched by the company.
Opposite party no.2 besides taking several preliminary objections took the same footing as that of opposite party no.1 and denied all the contents praying for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3) We have heard both the counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case available on the file thoroughly.
4) The counsel for the opposite parties assailed the complaint alleging that the same is not maintainable as the complainant had purchased 20 tucks of blade for Rs. 160/- in wholesale and the said purchase was made for resale or commercial activity. We have perused the file carefully. There is no evidence on record to show that the blade was not used for personal consumption but was rather made for making profit by way of resale. Hence, complaint is maintainable and complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties. During the course of arguments, keeping in view the nature of the allegations, on the request of both the counsel for the parties, the packets containing the blades was opened for court examination. As per the printed instructions on the cover, the packet contained 20 tucks each containing five blades. A copy of the said cover showing five blades as printed on the packet is also placed on record as Ex. C-3. The packets duly packed were opened and four blades were found in it. In other words, one blade was found short in every packet despite declaration of five blades on its packet. The counsel for the opposite parties could not explain the shortage but contended that there was no manufacturing defect or duplication in the production of blades but it is manual defect on the part of the person packing the same. It is not disputed that the blades were sold to the consumer by opposite party no.1 for Rs. 160/- as alleged by opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.2 is the manufacturer of the said blades. Since the blades were not quantitatively found same as declared on the packet, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2.
5) In view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party no.2 to refund Rs. 160/- to the complainant besides paying a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5500/- within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which entire amount shall fetch penal interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment.
Announced
30.3.2015.
President,
Distt. Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Rewari.
Member,
DCDRF,Rewari.
