Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The  complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that on 05.10.2021  he purchased  biscuits of ‘Unibic’ Cashew Almond bearing Lot No. 84-166/6 from Opposite Party No.3 manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 company, however, Opposite Party No.3  did not issue any bill of the  said packet saying that  he does not issue bills for these type of small and single articles, but Opposite Party No.3  assured that he sells genuine things. Further alleges, that on the same day, when the complainant made first bite of the said  biscuit, he felt some changed taste and when he spitted out the first bite then he noticed that the worms were there in the said biscuits.  Immediately, the complainant checked  the packet and there were so many worms present in the said packet of biscuits. In this regard, the complainant also prepared a  video of the same, and the video CD of the same is enclosed herewith. Thereafter, the complainant visited the shop of Opposite Party No.3  from where he had purchased the said packet of biscuit, who talked to the representative of Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.3 and explained all the things. In this regard, the complainant also prepared the audio of calls recording with Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. In this way, the complainant suffered mental tension and harassment in the hands of Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the complainant made so many visits and requests to the Opposite Parties in the matter, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant.  As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on account mental and  physical harassment for playing with the life of the complainant.   

2.       Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that  the complainant has neither produced any bill/ receipt etc of the alleged purchase of goods nor produced the goods before this District Consumer Commission nor the alleged defective goods were sent to any other appropriate authority  i.e. health department to get the same tested, so in the absence of any testing report from the laboratory, the goods can not be said to be defective goods or hazardous to health being sub standard or lack of purity. Moreover,  it can not be presumed that the alleged defect in the goods was due to any manufacturing fault  or it was caused due to is inappropriate storage on the part of the seller or any wrongdoing on the part of the buyer, and hence, the present complaint is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. On merits, Opposite Party No.1 took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, it is prayed that the   complaint may be dismissed with costs. 

3.       None has come present on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and  as such, they were proceeded against exparte.   

4.       In order to  prove  his  case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents  Ex.C2 to Ex.C9, original CD Ex.C10 and  closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

5.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Party No.1 also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Vimal Preet Singh TBO Ex.OP1/1 and authorisation letter Ex.OP1/2 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have heard the complainant and ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and also  gone through the documents placed  on record.

7.       During the course of arguments, the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1  has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of  the parties and also gone through the record on file.

8.       It is not the denial of the parties that the complainant has purchased the biscuit in question of Unibic i.e. Opposite Party No.1 company. The main contention of the complainant is that on 05.10.2021  he purchased  biscuits of ‘Unibic’ Cashew Almond bearing Lot No. 84-166/6 from Opposite Party No.3 manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 company, however, Opposite Party No.3  did not issue any bill of the  said packet saying that  he does not issue bills for these type of small and single articles, but Opposite Party No.3  assured that he sells genuine things. Further contended that on the same day , when the complainant made first bite of the said  biscuit, he felt some changed taste and when he spitted out the first bite then he noticed that the worms were there in the said biscuits.  Immediately, the complainant checked the packet and there were so many worms present in the said packet of biscuits. In this regard, the complainant also prepared a  video of the same, and the video CD of the same is enclosed herewith. Thereafter, the complainant visited the shop of Opposite Party No.3  from where he had purchased the said packet of biscuit, who talked to the representative of Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.3 and explained all the things. In this regard, the complainant also prepared the audio of calls recording with Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. In this way, the complainant suffered mental tension and harassment in the hands of Opposite Parties. On the other hand, ld.counsel counsel for Opposite Party No.1 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that first  of all, the complainant has neither produced any bill/ receipt etc of the alleged purchase of goods nor produced the goods before this District Consumer Commission nor the alleged defective goods were sent to any other appropriate authority  i.e. health department to get the same tested, so in the absence of any testing report from the laboratory, the goods can not be said to be defective goods or hazardous to health being sub standard or lack of purity. Moreover,  it can not be presumed that the alleged defect in the goods was due to any manufacturing fault  or it was caused due to is inappropriate storage on the part of the seller or any wrongdoing on the part of the buyer, and hence, the present complaint is devoid of merit, but we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

9.       The main contention of the Opposite Party No.1 is that since the  complainant has neither produced any bill/ receipt etc of the alleged purchase of goods and hence, he is not consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.  In this regard, the complainant has contended that he repeatedly made requests to the Opposite Party No.3  from whom he purchased the biscuit packet to question to issue him the bill in this regard, but all the times, Opposite Party No.3  lingered on the matter on one pretext to another. However, this conversation, the complainant has recorded in CD by Audio Clip and this audio was heard by this District Consumer Commission during the course of arguments and  in this audio, the complainant has been raised the demand of bill of the product, but Opposite Party No.3  saying that he will issue the bill and never contended that he did not sell the product in question. In this regard, the complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 which has not been rebutted by the Opposite Parties by filing any cogent or convincing evidence, rather Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 chose to remain absent and proceeded against exparte. As such, this plea goes against the Opposite Parties.  Consumer Court is a special purpose court which deals with cases related to consumer disputes and grievances. These are set up by the government to protect the consumers’ rights. Its primary function is to maintain fair practices by sellers. Any consumer who is betrayed by the trader and denied his/her rights can lodge a complaint against the trader under this Act. A consumer is any person who has purchased goods for a certain value of money for self-consumption.

10.     The second plea of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the alleged defective product has not been sent to any appropriate laboratory for getting it tested. But at its initial stage, we perused the biscuit packet in question thorough in open court and also seen the Video CD prepared by the complainant on the spot and with the naked eyes, we  seen the live worms  there in the biscuit packet and as such, we did not deem it fit case to send the said product in some appropriate laboratory for its testing and as such, the Opposite Party No.1 who is manufacturer can not escape from its liability to make good the loss of the complainant. However, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 did not dare to come present before this District Consumer Commission and rather chose not to defend its case and were proceeded against exparte. In view of this, we found that there is certainly a deficiency in service on the part of all the Opposite Parties who sold the defective and hazardous goods to the complainant.  On this count, the Complainant prayed before this District Consumer Commission to pay Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment, but we are of the view that the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would  be fully met if the complainant is awarded lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.3,000/- and we award the same accordingly.

11.     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against  all the  Opposite Parties and all the Opposite Parties are jointly or severally directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousands only) (i.e. Rs.1,000/- each of the Opposite Parties) to the complainant, within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Consumer Commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.  

Announced in Open Commission.