Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 616.

                                                          Instituted on     : 02.11.2017.

                                                          Decided on       : 30.01.2019.

Shantanu Saini, age 24 years, son of Sh. Rajesh Saini, R/o H.No.777/19, Almirah Factory, Saini Gali, Arya Nagar, Green Road, Gali No.9, Rohtak.

                                                                    ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Level 3-6, Pioneer Square, Sector-62, Near Golf Course Extension Road, Gurugram-122101 through its Manager.

2. R.N. Cinema, Opposite Power House, Rohtak through its Manager.

……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh. Deepak Jain, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

                    Opposite party No. 2 already exparte.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that on 10.09.2017, the complainant has approached to opposite party No. 2 to watch movie and there he had purchased a packet of Lays Chips and has paid an amount of Rs.40/- to OP No. 2, but he was shocked to see the packet that no MRP or no packing date has been mentioned on the same. When complainant contacted with the official of OP No. 2 in this regard, they did not gave any satisfactory reply and started misbehaving with him. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that OPs may kindly be directed to pay Rs.4,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase of chips till the date of actual realization and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause to the complainant.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has failed to produce a valid bill or any other conclusive proof for the purchase of lays chips for the cost of Rs.40/- on 10.09.2017. It is further submitted that all the packets are stamped by way of ink and it is very easy to rub and erase the printed specifications and claim that the packets are without any Batch Number, Manufacturing Date, MRP and Net Quantity. It is also submitted that complainant has not followed the principle of “Caveat Emptor” which means “buyer be aware”. That complainant himself is at fault ad was not vigilant while purchasing the alleged packet and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP No. 1.    However, OP No. 2 failed to appear before the court, so, OP No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.01.2018.

3.                          Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and has closed his evidence on dated 30.01.2019. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 in his evidence tendered document Ex.R-1 and has closed his evidence on dated 20.12.2018.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per bill Ex.C1, opposite party No.2 has charged Rs.40/- on dated 10.11.2017 for the packet of Lays. A wrapper has been placed on record as Ex.C3 whereby net quantity of packet is 55g but neither any batch number or manufacturing date, nor MRP has been mentioned on the packet. Whereas as per empty packet/wrapper has been placed on record as Ex.C10 and the price of packet is Rs.20/- only for 52g. Meaning thereby that opposite party No.2 has charged almost double of the amount for the alleged packet. Moreover manufacturing or expiry date has not been mentioned on the packet which shows that they might have selling spurious goods and are playing with the health of general public. Hence the act of opposite party No.2 is illegal and there is unfair trade practice as well deficiency in service on its part.

6.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as compensation on account of mental agony &  harassment and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision.

7.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

30.01.2019.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.