Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/614/2014

Dinesh Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pepsico India - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Suri

16 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/614/2014
Date of Institution	:	12/09/2014
Date of Decision	:	16/06/2015

 

 

Dinesh Jindal s/o Sh. Raj Kumar Jindal, #4735, Sector 70, Mohali, Punjab.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.      PepsiCo India, 3B, DLF Corporate Park, ‘S’ Block, Qutab Enclave, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through Manager/authorised signatory.

2.      Garg Enterprises, Shop No.194, Sector 35D, Chandigarh through Manager/Authorised signatory/ Proprietor.

……Opposite Parties

 

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                               

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Puneet Tuli, Proxy counsel for Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for complainant alongwith complainant in person.
		Sh. Manvender Rathee, Counsel for OP-1
		Sh. Parmod Kumar Garg, Proprietor of OP-2

 

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Dinesh Jindal, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against PepsiCo India and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that on 8.2.2014 he had purchased one packet of chips, make Lays, from OP-2 for a consideration of Rs.20/- for the purpose of serving the same at his residence for the guests. 

                According to the complainant, when he tried to open the packet in the presence of his guests on 9.2.2014, he felt something amiss and felt that there was not sufficient material inside the packet.  When the complainant weighed the packet, its weight was found much less than the weight mentioned in the packet. It has been alleged by the complainant that there is gross deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1 in as much as it is selling packets containing goods much less than the weight.  Hence, this complaint. 

2.         In its written statement OP-1 has taken a number of preliminary objections including that the complainant is not a consumer; that no deficiency in service or negligence was made out against OP-1 in view of the fact that the complainant had neither purchased any goods from it nor had hired its services.  In the absence of any valid proof of purchase, it has been denied that the complainant had purchased the packet in question from OP-2 on 8.2.2014. It has further been denied that OP-1 has manufactured the packet in question or that OP-1 is selling packets containing goods much less than the weight.  It has been contended that the present complaint lacks jurisdiction as the complainant has miserably failed to place anything on record regarding the packet of Lay’s in question.  It has further been contended that the complainant has made a false, frivolous and concocted story about the purchase of the said pack of Lay’s in question for fulfilling his selfish gains. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         In its separate written reply by way of affidavit OP-2 has also taken a number of preliminary objections including that the  complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint and that no cause of action ever arose to complainant against OP-2.  It has been admitted that the packet of chips was sold by it.  However, it has been averred that OP-2 is a retailer and used to sell the products of OP-1 and it has nothing to do with the underweight packets of chips as the same were being packed by the company.  It has been contended that OP-2 had charged the MRP of the chips from the complainant and had not indulged in any unfair trade practice.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-2 has prayed that its name may be deleted from the present litigation.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have appraised the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by the complainant and OP-1 and heard the arguments addressed by the learned proxy Counsel for the complainant, learned counsel for OP-1 and proprietor of OP-2.
6.         It is the admitted case of Garg Enterprises/OP-2 that the complainant purchased one packet of chips (make Lay’s) from it on 8.2.2014 for an amount of Rs.20/- vide retail invoice, copy of which is annexure R-3.  As far as the contention of the complainant that there was no sufficient material inside the packet for which payment was made by him is concerned, a perusal of the photocopies of the packet (Annexure R-2) shows that the quantity of the packet is mentioned to be 26 gms.  However, the complainant has not indicated the actual weight of the disputed packet in his complaint.  On 11.5.2015, we considered it proper to ask the complainant to produce the packet alongwith one standard weight scale for taking the weight of the packet in the presence of the Forum. The OPs were also granted an opportunity to bring their own standard weight scale.  On 1.6.2015, the complainant appeared alongwith his counsel, Sh. Manvender Rathee, Advocate appeared for OP-1 and Sh. Parmod Kumar Garg, Proprietor of OP-2 also appeared.  The weight of the packet was taken on a weighing scale brought by the complainant and was found to be 4 gms. only.  The learned counsel for OP-1 was also granted an opportunity to bring his own scale, but, he failed to bring his own scale nor he was ready to bring it on some other date. Sh. Parmod Kumar Garg, proprietor of OP-2 also did not want to get the weight of the packet checked from some other scale.  Thus, it is proved that the packet of the chips (make Lay’s), purchased by the complainant from OP-2 on 8.2.2014, was having a weight of only 4 gms. against the weight of 26 gms. mentioned on it.  We may also mention that we did not observe any visible tampering with the packet. Hence, there is definite evidence of deficiency in service on the part of OP-2. However, strangely enough, the complainant has sought relief only against OP-1. There is no prayer for any relief against OP-2 for the reasons best known to the complainant.
7.         As far as the liability of the manufacturer, M/s PepsiCo India/OP-1 is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the complainant has not impleaded the distributor from whom OP-2 purchased the packet of chips (make Lay’s).  OP-2 has also not produced any copy of the bill which could show that the packet in question alongwith other packets bearing batch No.N152A were purchased by it from an authorized distributor of OP-1 and it was manufactured by OP-1.  It is also significant to note that the complainant also did not make any request for sending the packet in dispute alongwith one standard packet to the appropriate laboratory for comparison for arriving at a conclusion whether the disputed packet was actually manufactured by OP-1 or it is a spurious one.  It is a matter of common experience that unfortunately some of the factory owners are engaged in the business of manufacturing spurious edibles to earn easy bucks. The products of the brand companies are sold through a large network of distributors and dealers. These products are in high demand and it is a matter of common knowledge that on a number of occasions the products are found to be spurious, which may not be the act of the manufacturer company.  In the instant case, there is no cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the disputed packet of chips (make Lay’s), purchased by complainant from OP-2, was actually manufactured by
   OP-1.  Though, there is some probability of manufacture of the said packet of chips (make Lay’s) by OP-1, but, OP-1 cannot be held liable for unfair trade practice/deficiency in service merely on the basis of conjectures, surmises or probabilities.  
8.         For the reasons recorded above, though the case of the complainant against OP-2 is proved, yet, since the complainant has not claimed any relief against OP-2, there is no option but to dismiss the complaint against both the OPs, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
16/06/2015	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	Member	President