Date of Filling     : 27.08.2014.

                                                                                         Date of Disposal : 01.03.2016.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.

PRESENT: THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.,            …    PRESIDENT

                 TMT. S.  SUJATHA, B.Sc.,                           …    MEMBER - I

C.C. No.61/2014

(Tuesday the 01^st  March 2016)

Mr. P. Ruban @ Gunasekaran,

S/o. Parasuraman,

No.15, Sivasankaran Street,

Kamarajapuram,

Ambattur,

Chennai - 600 053.                                                                    … Complainant.  

/ Versus /

The Managing Director,

Trust Aqua,

(Packaged drinking water),

S.No.345/2, Ulundai Village,

Vayalur Road,

Tiruvallur District.                                                                     … Opposite Party.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 16.02.2016 in the presence of M/s. A. Raveechandran, Counsel for the complainant, Tmt. A. Latha Maheswari, Counsel for the opposite party, upon hearing arguments, having  perused the documents and evidences and written arguments of both sides, this Forum delivered the following,

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party seeking direction to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- for mental agony with interest @ 24% p.a. with cost.

1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:-

The complainant while travelling on his way to tour purchased 1 litre packaged drinking water on 07.04.2014 from the provision shop belongs to the opposite party company and it is pertinent to note that the opposite party’s company drinking water bottle contained a white thin jelly fish.  It it is used, it will actually spoil the health of the complainant.

2.       Then the complainant sent a statutory legal notice dated 25.07.2014 through registered post with acknowledgement due and all the events and facts in issue has been explained in the statutory legal notice.  But, the opposite party has been evaded from all the contents raised in their statutory legal notice dated 25.07.2014 and also till date, no reply from the opposite party and it is absolutely admitted by the opposite party that deficiency in customer service R/W unfair trade practice under section 12 R/W 2(i) b (iii) (d) (18) (r) (vi) (vii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Hence the complaint is filed.

3.         The contention of the written version of the opposite party is briefly as follows:-

The complainant is bereft of facts like on 03.04.2014 where he has purchased the alleged 1 litre package drinking water there is no provision store belonging to the opposite party.  The provision store owner is to be impleaded as a party.  An appropriate reply was sent on 12.08.2014 to the notice issued by the complainant, Dated 25.07.2014.  That the opposite party is Trust taqua and not Trust aqua.  It is an ISI certified company in the field for more than 10 years without any blemish.  Even in the notice, no date of purchase was given but in the complaint it is interpolated.  Further, in this area of operation biological reasons there cannot be a jelly fish in water.  What the loss in finance, health, profession and mental distress are not explained at all because there is nothing that happened to explain.  It is put to strict proof that on which date, the complainant purchased, from which provision store, whether there was any outer material like jell fish and whether the complainant has incurred any loss, mentally and physically.

4.         If really there was any outer material, it is incumbent on the complainant to send it for scientific investigation by Kings’ Institute, Guindy and the report of it is a sine qua non for any reasonable compensation.  There is no attempt so far made by the complainant in that regard for fear that it will boomerang on him.  As the profile goes, the opposite party before dispatch daily micro Biological and chemical testings carried out by experienced professional as per BIS specifications ISI mark is a must and the opposite party has got that standard.  Moreover daily the most hygiene and clean environment with reverse osmohi (R.O.) Plant.  It is a way of pollution centers.  There are various stages of filtrations and UV treatment, Ozone treatment.  R.O. treatment and micron filtration are undertaken under quality control system and once in every day for each control our system these are all checked up by the various authorities concerned with mineral water production.  There is no chance for deficiency in service.  Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.         In order to prove the case on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Exhibit A1 to A4 are marked. While so, on the side of the opposite party, the proof affidavit is filed for his evidence.  No documents filed on the side of the opposite party.

6.         At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this Forum is:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

7.       Written arguments submitted on both sides and the copies of the same have been furnished to either side.  In addition to that, oral arguments also adduced on both the sides. 

8.       Point no.1:-

Regarding this point the duty cast upon the complainant to prove the allegations made in the complaint against the opposite party by all means of relevant and consistent evidence.  Therefore, this Forum has to decide whether the complainant has proved his complaint by means of acceptable and cogent evidence.  First of all, on going through the proof affidavit of the  complainant which is filed for his evidence, it is stated that while he was travelling on his way to tour he has purchased 1 litre packaged drinking water of the opposite party from a shop and it is noted that the said water bottle containing a white thin jelly fish.  It is further narrated that the said product of the opposite party is an ISI trade mark even then the said bottle has contained the said foreign material which is absolutely deficiency in customer service and also unfair trade practice has been followed against the health of the human life as well as to him and therefore, he had immediately issued a legal notice to the opposite party which is marked as Ex.A1 and the acknowledgement card for the receipt of the same by the opposite party is marked as Ex.A2.  Photographs of the drinking water bottle by name as Trust Aqua as marked as Ex.A3 series and Ex.A4 is the order copy of C.M.P. No.07/2015 in C.C. No.61/2014.   The complainant further narrated that it is very well able to see directly the presence of foreign particles, which seems to be fungus inside the said bottle.

9.         While so, it is contented by the opposite party through his proof affidavit that the owner of the provisional store has not impleaded in this complaint, who is the necessary party and also is not at all mentioned the date of purchase, the name of the shop where it was purchased in the legal notice sent by the complainant and further in this area of operation in the biological reasons there can not be a jelly fish in water.  Furthermore, no document filed by the complainant to prove the purchase of the said water bottle and not explained the loss incurred by the complainant and in fact there is no deficiency in service on the part  of the opposite party.    Hence, the complainant had not at all proved the allegations in a proper manner.

10.       At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put forth on the either side, it is the foremost duty of this Forum to decide whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint.  First of all, it is learnt from the written version of the opposite party that the packaged water bottle namely Trustt Aqua manufactured by the opposite party and the same has not at all fully denied by the opposite party.  Similarly, the address incorporated with the said bottle also not disputed.   But at the same time, it goes without saying that it is the duty of the complainant to prove before this Forum, where the said water bottle was purchased by the complainant? since it is the vital matter to conclude that the complainant is a consumer comes under the purview of the provisions under Consumer Protection Act 1986.  In such circumstances, it is rightly pointed out by the opposite party both in the written version as well as in the proof affidavit that the complainant has not at all mentioned the date and place of purchase of the said water bottle in Ex.A1 legal notice.   Whereas, the date of purchase is interpolated in the complaint as 07.04.2014.    For arguments sake, if it is taken as true when the objection raised by the opposite party regarding such interpolation certainly the duty bound to the complainant to prove the date of purchase by means of proper evidence.   Such being the position the bill of purchase is the important document to show the date of purchase, the place of purchase, from whom it was purchased and for what cost the said bottle was purchased.  In fact, no such purchase bill is not filed to prove the above facts on the side of the complainant and therefore, the passing of sale consideration is not been fulfilled.  At this point of time, it needless to say that there is no sale consideration passed for the purchase of the said water bottle by the complainant.   Hence, it is crystal clear that  the complainant is not come under the category of consumer as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act 1986.

11.       In furtherance, on careful seeing the said packaged water bottle physically, the date of manufacture, the date of package etc. is not found available in the said bottle.   At the same time, there is a recital that this bottle can be used within 6  months from the date of manufacture.  It is an admitted fact that the opposite party is an ISI certified company in the field for more than 10 years without any blemish.   Certainly, the said particulars regarding the date of manufacture, the date of package etc. have been incorporated or affixed in the said water bottle.   When the said factors are not found available in the said bottle there is a suspicious arose, when the bottle actually purchased by the complainant? is in question.  Without marking  any document pertaining to the purchase of the said bottle, though it is true that there is some foreign particles found in the packaged water bottle,  if there is no proof of evidence for when and where it was purchased, it is concluded that the complainant has not proved the allegation made in the complaint.   Hence, the complaint is filed by the complainant has lost its merits.   Not only that the complainant is not at all a consumer under Consumer Protection Act 1986 as contemplated.

12.       In the light of the above facts and observations, this Forum is of considered view that the allegations made in the complaint against the opposite party regarding the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party has not at all been proved beyond all doubts.  Thus point no.1 is answered accordingly.

13.       Point no.2:-

As per the decision arrived in point no.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint and answered accordingly.

14.       In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No cost.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 1^st  March  2016.

Sd/-***                                                                                                            Sd/-***

MEMBER - I                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

Nil.

Sd/-***                                                                                                            Sd/-***

MEMBER - I                                                                                                  PRESIDENT