Date of filing:14.6.2013
Date of Disposal:4.2.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014.
C.C.No.102 OF 2013.
Between :
Dr.BolluVenkateswara Rao, S/o Sri Rameweswara Rao, 50 years, R/o Door No.25-209/2, Kantheru Donka Road, Nambur, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by Consumers’ Guidance Society, having Its registered and administration office at Flat No.1, 1st Floor,D.No.58-1-26, Veerapaneni Plaza, Patamata, Vijayawada 520 010.
….. Complainant.
And
1. Swapna Homoeo Medicals, rep., by its Proprietor, Door No.40-9/1-27, Meroz Complex, Vasavya Nagar, Benz Circle, Vijayawada 520 010.
2. M/s Bayer Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Rep., by its Authorized Signatgory, Kolshet Road, Thane – 400 607.
…..Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 21.1.2014 in the presence of Consumers’ Guidance Society, representing the complainant and Sri I.Ravindra Nath, Counsel for opposite party No.1 and Sri M.Satyanarayana, Counsel for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S.Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by complainant through Consumers' Guidance Society, Vijayawada under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund the entire sale consideration paid over to 1st opposite party i.e. Rs.2,320/-, to award compensation of Rs.5,000/-, towards costs of complaint and other reliefs.
1. The brief facts of the case which lead to filing the present complaint are that the complainant has been rearing three pet dogs at his dwelling unit and the complainant and his family members are very fond of same. As the said dogs were infected with ticks affecting their health, the complainant has approached the 1st opposite party and upon the advice of the 1st opposite party, the complainant purchased four “Kiltex Collars” being manufactured by 2nd opposite party on 8.4.2013 for Rs.2,320/-. The complainant used the said collars by fastening them around the neck of his pet dogs as per the instructions made out by the opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant used the 4th collar with a hope that it would work at least for 2nd time. In spite of fastening of collar around the neck of pet dogs, they had been affected with tick infestation in the same magnitude. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party and brought the said fact to the notice of 1st opposite party, but the 1st opposite party had refused to resolve the grievance of complainant on the ground that the 2nd opposite party is alone would be liable. The complainant also got issued notice dt.18.5.2013 to the opposite parties 1 and 2 through registered post. The 1st opposite party refused to receive the notice and the 2nd opposite party maintained silent even after receipt of notice. Hence, the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties 1 and 2. The 1st opposite party sent a letter dt.17.7.2013 in the form of version and contended that they are authorized distributors for several Animal Health Products since 1988 and admitted the fact of selling the collars to complainant on 8.4.2013. It is further contended that they have not received any notice and that they have not received any complaint against the said collars and that the complainant or his authorized representative has not met them with regard to the complaint on lack of efficacy on the product purchased from them and finally prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The 2nd opposite party filed version denying the material averments of the complaint and contended that there are several factors and cautions depend upon usage to be considered for successful treatment of any medicine and that the complaint is not tenable and that they are well notified and running with good reputation and that there is no complaint against the action of Kiltex Collers till today and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The complainant filed his affidavit reiterating the material averments of his complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. The Proprietor of the 1st opposite party and the authorized agent of 2nd opposite party filed chief affidavits, but no documents were marked on its behalf.
5. Heard both sides and perused the record.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in supplying the defective “Kiltex Collar” to complainant?
- If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
POINT NO.1:-
7. On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), it is clear that the complainant has purchased four “Kiltex Collars” from the 1st opposite party, which were manufactured by the 2nd opposite party on 8.4.2013 under Ex.A1 cash bill for Rs.2,320/-. It is the grievance of the complainant that he used the said collars as instructed by the opposite parties, but in spite of using the same, the dogs are being affected with tick infestation and on that he approached the 1st opposite party and informed about the same. But the 1st opposite party evaded its liability on the ground that the 2nd opposite party manufacturer is only liable. Having vexed with their attitude, the complainant got issued notice under Ex.A2 and the 1st opposite party evaded to receive the same and got returned the notice (Ex.A3) and the 2nd opposite party, though received the notice maintained silence.
8. On the other hand, the contention of the 1st opposite party through chief affidavit is that they got consultant Animal Husbandry Doctor by name K.Harichandra who is well experienced and retired from service and that the complainant has not brought the pet dogs either to Veterinary doctor or to their Homoeo stores and that the complainant used the belts without following the instructions by the company. It is further contended that the complainant has not approached this 1st opposite party or to the concerned doctor. The 2nd opposite party simply contended that the complainant has not followed the instructions and that they have got good name.
9. In view of above circumstances, the following points stood for scrutiny before us. Though the complainant has proved the fact that he purchased the collars for his pet dogs from 1st opposite party, he has not placed any material to show the state or degree of infestation with ticks by the time of purchase or continued to remain infested with ticks after purchasing and using the collars. The complainant has not placed any material in the shape of Veterinary doctor's prescription or doctor's opinion to prove that the pet dogs are affected with ticks etc. Further the complainant also not placed any material except his oral version to show that even after using of the collars, the pet dogs are being affected with ticks infestation. The complainant failed to produce any documentary proof to show that the dogs are being affected with ticks infestation. Further it is not the case of complainant that he has brought the pet dogs to the 1st opposite party to examine them after using the collars. Merely basing on the oral assertions of complainant, it is very hard to ascertain that, even after using the collars, the pet dogs are being affected with ticks infestation. In the absence of any such authenticated evidence, it is not safe to come to conclusion that the said collars did not function properly more particularly in the light of specific defence put forth by the opposite parties that the complainant has not properly followed the instructions in using the collars. Definitely the Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation to safeguard the interest of the consumers. But in view of the circumstances stated supra, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.
POINT No.2:-
10. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 4th day of February, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 Dr.BolluVenkateswara Rao D.W.1K.Satyanarayana,
Complainant Proprietor,
(by affidavit) of the 1st opposite party,
(by affidavit)
D.W.2 K.Venkatesh,
Authorized Agent of the
2nd opposite party
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 08.04.2013 Receipt issued by the 1st opposite party for Rs.2,320/-.
Ex.A.2 18.05.2013 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.3 . . Unserved returned cover.
Ex.A.4 . . Broacher of the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A.5 . . Letter of authorization.
For the opposite parties:-
None.
PRESIDENT
