Delhi

East Delhi

CC/565/2016

AKANSHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PEPSICO INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jul 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  565/16

 

Ms. Akanksha Srivastava

D/o Shri Amit Srivastava

F-25, Sector-56

Noida, Uttar Pradesh                                                              …….Complainant

Vs.

 

1. Sachin Store

B-2/62, Near Nahar Public School

New Kondli, Delhi – 96

 

2. Pepsi Co. India

3B, DLF Corporate Park

‘S’ Block, Qutab Enclave

Phse-III, Gurgaon – 122 002

Haryana                                                                                             ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 29.10.2016

Judgment Reserved on: 05.07.2019

Judgment Passed on: 09.07.2019

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Ms. Akanksha Srivastava against Sachin Store (OP-1) and M/s. Pepsi So. India (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that complainant Akanksha Srivastava on 18.08.2016, purchased a packet of Lays chips Chile flavor of batch              no. N1130616. 

            It was stated that the packet contained 20% more chips of Rs. 10/-.  The packet was a sealed vacuumed.  Net weight of 30 gms. (25 + 5 gm.) was written on the packet.  When the packet was shaked, it usually gives a cracky noise, but there was no noise which implied that the packet was vacuumed. 

            She sent a notice on 21.08.2016 to M/s. Pepsi So. India (OP-2) disclosing all the details regarding the unfair trade practice and the insult which was caused to the complainant, but no sign of compensation except few packets of chips provided by M/s. Pepsi So. India (OP-2) not realizing the gravity of the matter.  Thus, she has prayed for compensation of                  Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a.

 3.        Notice of the complaint was given to Sachin Store (OP-1) and           M/s. Pepsi So. India (OP-2).  They did not appear inspite of service.  Hence, both of them were proceeded ex-parte.

4. n support of its complaint, she has examined herself on affidavit.  She has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.           

6.         We have heard the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  From the evidence on record, it is noticed that cash memo which was filed for the purchase of chips from Sachin Store (OP-1) was not having the name of the complainant as well as the seller.  Complainant have placed on record an affidavit of Sachin Gupta, owner of Sachin Store (OP-1) who deposed that complainant purchased 10 packets of Lays chips chile flavour from their store.  Thus, the fact remains that complainant have purchased     10 packets of Lays chips Chile flavour from Sachin Store (OP-1).

            As to whether one of such packets was not of the weight inscribed on the packet.  It has to be seen as to whether the complainant have produced any evidence on record to ascertain this.  If the testimony of the complainant is perused, it is noticed that she has only stated that the packet contained 20% more chips of Rs. 10/- and when she discovered that the packet was a sealed vacuumed, the net weight of 30 gms. was written on the packet.  However, no report has been filed on record to show that the packet was of less weight. 

Not only that, on her application for getting it weighed from the Department of Weights & Measures, she took the sealed packet for getting it weighed from the Department of Weights & Measures.  She returned the packet having packed on her own tampering the seal of the Forum.  No report has been obtained from the Department of Weights & Measures to show that the packet was of not of that weight which was written on it.  Not only that, she got her application for getting the lab report from the Department of Weights & Measures withdrawn.  Thus, in the absence of any lab report, it cannot be said that the packet which was purchased by her from Sachin Store (OP-1) was of that weight which was written on the said packet.  Thus, her plea remains unsubstantiated.  Therefore, no case of any deficiency or unfair trade practice was made out against Sachin Store (OP-1) and M/s. Pepsi So. India (OP-2).

Not only that, it would not be out of place to mention that the complainant exchanged correspondence with M/s. Pepsi So. India (OP-2) and in one of the letter, they have asked her to send the packet for getting it checked/investigated, but she did not opt to send the packet.   Instead of sending the packet to M/s. Pepsi So. India (OP-2), she has preferred to approach this Forum and have failed to substantiate these facts. 

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that complaint of the complainant deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                  (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member 

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                      President