Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1180/2015

Hitesh Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nutrine Confectionery Co.Pvt.ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri R.K.Garg

05 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                     

                                                Complaint No.  1180

                                                Instituted on:    29.09.2015

                                                Decided on:       05.07.2016

 

Hitesh Garg son of Shri Naresh Kumar Garg, resident of Katera Mohalla, Near Jyoti Sarup Gurudwara, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                        Versus

1.             Nutrine Confectionery Company Private Limited, 15-3295, Palamaner Road, Chittoor-517  002 (AP).

2.             Hershey’s Consumer Care Cell, Chemtex House, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai 400 076.

3.             Garg Chemicals, Sunami Gate, Sangrur 148 001.                                                …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Saurav Garg, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :               Shri  Ashish Grover, Adv.

For OP No.3             :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Hitesh Garg, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased two sealed boxes of Jolly Rancher Juicy Filled Candy from OP number 3 on 17.09.2015, which is manufactured by OP number 1 and 2 (for Rs.270/- i.e. Rs.135/- per box). The MRP mentioned on each box is Rs.150/- and the net weight of each box is 200 grams as mentioned on the box.  It is further averred that after reaching home opened one sealed box for consuming the same and found that it contains only 40 candies and on each candy the MRP mentioned is Rs.2/- including of all taxes and net weight of each candy is mentioned to be 5 grams. It is further averred that the complainant did not open the second box and immediately approached OP number 3 for making refund of the payment of Rs.270/-, but the OP number 3 stated that since he had received the sealed boxes and sold the same. It is stated further that the price of each candy is mentioned as Rs.2/- per piece, whereas the cost of total 40 candies comes to Rs.80/-, whereas the Ops have charged an amount of Rs.135/- per box, which is a clear cut case of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the complainant the amount of Rs.270/- and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 3 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 3 was proceeded exparte on 04.12.2015.

 

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that the complainant purchased the alleged packets which were specially packed “retail package” sold on weight and not by units. There is no sale of individual candies and it is clearly mentioned on the package that ‘not to be sold loose”. The Ops have declared the total weight of the product along with MRP i.e. Rs.150/- for 200 grams and the package is premium one specially designed to fit in a gift category.  As such, it is stated that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 candy (3), Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 affidavit, Ex.C-4 sealed box of candy Jolly Rancher and closed evidence. On the other hand, the Ops number 1 and 2 did not produce any evidence on record.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             Ex.C-2 is the copy of bill issued by OP number 3 showing the sale/purchase of Jolly Rancher two packets for Rs.270/- (i.e. Rs.135/- for each packet).  In the present case the complainant has alleged that the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice by selling the Jolly Rancher sealed box of candy for Rs.135/- each to the complainant, as it is on the record that a candy is having a weight of five grams, whereas the total candies in one box are 200 grams and by this way the total candies in number comes to 40 in one box, whereas the OPs have charged an amount of Rs.135/- for one box instead of Rs.80/- if calculated as per the weight of candy and weight of the box.  A bare perusal of the candy Ex.C-1 clearly reveals that it has a weight of five grams and the price of each candy is Rs.2/- in retail and by this way, the OPs could have charged at the most Rs.80/- per packet.  But, there is no explanation from the side of the OPs number 1 and 2 that why they did charge Rs.135/- for each box of candies.  We may mention that even the reply filed by the OPs number 1 and 2 is signed only by Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate, learned counsel for the Ops number 1 and 2 and the Ops number 1 and 2 even did not produce any cogent, reliable and trust worthy evidence on record to deny the allegations of the complainant in the complaint case.  As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops number 1 and 2, as the packet has been packed and marketed by the Ops number 1 and 2.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs number 1 and 2 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.270/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 29.09.2015 till realisation and further to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 5, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member