BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 08^th DAY OF JUNE 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to pay him a sum of Rs.25,000/- for having sold him a time barred groundnut.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant went to the OP M/s.Spencer’s Retail Ltd., 80 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bangalore on 27.04.2014 and purchased “Maiyas Tangy Groundnut 200 Gram” along with other items and after reaching home he found that, the OP has sold him this ‘Maiyas Tangy Groundnut’ which is expired its shelf life.  That immediately the complainant on 28.04.2014 visited the OP and lodged a complaint.  Therefore, the complainant prays for damages in a sum of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by OP having sold him a time barred Groundnut pocket.

3. In response to the notice issued OP appeared through their advocate and filed their version contending that, the complainant has never visited the retail out let on 27.04.2014 at 9.41 AM and has not purchased any commodities.  It is further contended by the OP that, the complainant having fabricated a receipt has filed a false complaint against them to make wrongful gain.  It is further contended by the OP that, they never sell any product beyond expiry date printed on the product.  Therefore, OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. After filing of the version, the complainant was called upon to submit his evidence by way of affidavit.  Accordingly, he filed his affidavit evidence together with the original packet of the Groundnut said to have been purchased from OP and the original receipt.  One Parthasarathy B.R, Assistant Manager, Legal and authorized signatory of M/s.Spencer’s Retail Ltd., filed his affidavit evidence in support of the averments made in the version.  Both the parties have submitted their written arguments.

 5. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        6. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, averments made in the version, sworn testimony of both parties, written arguments submitted by both sides and other materials placed on record. 

7. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

8.  The complainant alleges that on 27.04.2014 he visited the retail outlet of M/s.Spencer’s Retail Outlet Ltd., situated at 80 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bangalore and purchased certain items including “Maiyas Tangy Groundnut 200 Gram”.  The complainant further alleges that, after reaching the home, he found that, the Groundnut pocket sold to him has expiry date as 25.04.2014 and despite the said product is unfit for consumption the OP has sold it to him.  The complainant has produced the said Groundnut packet.  The perusal of the said Groundnut packet discloses that, the same has been manufactured on 26^th December 2013 and the expiry date is 25^th April 2014.  The complainant has produced receipt/retail invoice issued by the OP for having purchased the said Groundnut packet along with other items.  The receipt produced by the complainant goes to establish that, the complainant has purchased the above mentioned Groundnut packet from the OP on 27.04.2014 at about 9.41 AM by paying its price.  Though the said product has expired on 25^th April 2014, the OP has sold the same to complainant on 27.04.2014.  Certainly OP is not expected to sell any product which has out lived its shelf life.  As mentioned on the packet the said Groundnut has expired on 25^th April 2014.  Once the said packet has out lived its shelf life it becomes unfit for human consumption.  OP ought not to have sold the said product to the complainant.  This conduct of OP amounts to unfair trade practice.

9. The OP contended that, when said product has not been purchased by the complainant from its outlet and receipt produced by the complainant is fabricated.  We don’t have any reasons or basis to believe this allegation of OP.  Moreover the complainant on the very next day of purchase of the said packet has lodged a complaint with OP for which an acknowledgement has been issued by the OP and the same is produced by the complainant.  There is no response from the OP to the complaint lodged by the complainant on 28.04.2014.  This conduct of OP goes to show that they have no regard for such complaint filed by consumers.  If at all the complainant has not bought the said product form their outlet the OP should have immediately responded to the said complaint and denied that the said product has not been brought from them.  OP having kept quiet for all these days now have taken up a contention that the said product has not been bought from their outlet.

10. The sworn testimony of the complainant coupled with the said product of Groundnut and receipt goes to establish that the OP has sold the said product to the complainant which as out lived its shelf life.  Any product for that matter which has outlived its shelf life is unfit for human consumption and if consumed may cause health hazards.  This conduct of OP in selling such a product amounts to unfair trade practice as well as grave deficiency of service for which OP has to be directed to pay adequate compensation to the complainant.

11. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that, OP has to be directed to pay compensation/damages of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for deficiency of service apart from litigation cost of Rs.4,000/-.

12.  The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.

13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:   

  O R D E R

The complaint is allowed is allowed in part.  OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within four weeks from the date of communication of the order together with litigation cost of Rs.4,000/-.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 08^th day of June 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 26.09.2014.

1. Sri.Dipen Kumar Dutta.

Document produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 21.11.2014.

1. Sri.B.R Parthasarathy.  

Document produced by the Opposite party - Nil

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*