D.O.F:25/10/2017
D.O.O:08/07/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.207/2017
Dated this, the 08th day of July 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
T.C Narayanan
Advocate, Navami : Complainant
Poinachi, Post. Thekkil
Kasaragod – 671541
And
- Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. (PVMI)
Corporate Office, Global Business Park
1st Floor, Tower A
Mehrauli – Gurgaon Road,
Gurgaon, 122002
- Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. (PVMI)
Manesar Factory, 47th Milestone, : Opposite parties
Delhi- Jaipur Highway,
Village – Manesar.
Gurgaon – 122050,
Haryana
- Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. (PVMI)
South Sales Branch office, 301, 3rd floor, Krishna
Chambers, 20/21, V Cross, Konena agrahara,
Airport Road, Bangalore – 560017
Karnataka.
(Adv: Rajesh.V.P OP 1to 3)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
Facts of the case in brief as follows:-
- The complainant purchased two packets of Happy Den Chewing Gum sugar free with Xylitol on 14/09/2017 from a shop at Kanhangad. It is manufactured in August 2017 by opposite party No.1and opposite party No: 2 and marketed by opposite party No.3. Complainant paid Rs.10/- as its price. It should contain 6 pieces chewing gum packed as strip. On return to house, when packet is opened, it was empty in two packets. The advertisement through website guarantee quality product. But in truth packets were empty and thus deprived of the product though its price is paid, hence claimed Rs.75,000/- as compensation, litigation costs and to stop unlawful practice in trade in the interest of nation.
- Opposite party filed its written version, raising a contention that forum has no territorial jurisdiction, complainant is not a consumer, non joinder of retailer, all its products are produced on quality, standards, weight is also certified. Further opposite party, few of their waste products reached the market and company has taken up the matter legally by filing police complaint for taking action against those responsible and complainant is not entitled to any compensation.
- Complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as PW1. Ext A1 to A7 documents marked from his side and produced MO 1 to 3. A1 is copy of claim in the website, A2 is the chewing gum, A3 is the details of sales offices of opposite party, A4 is cash bill by Divine bakery poinachi, A5 is cash bill by ideal bakery Chattanchal, A6 is the affidavit, A7 is the copy of section 11 of Consumer Protection Act. MO1 is the jar carrying address of opposite party, MO2 is the cover MO3 is also a cover.
- As per rival contentions following points arise for consideration in the case.
- Whether the commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service
- Whether complainant is entitled to any compensation? And if so far what reliefs?
- Though opposite party has raised a contention regarding territorial jurisdictions it was not seriously pressed for hearing as preliminary issue. Further opposite party participated in the proceedings and thus submitted to the jurisdictions as well. Even according to the complainant, product was purchased from Kanhangad and thus part of cause of action arose in Kasaragod and hence it is held that the commission has got territorial jurisdictions to entertain the complaint. Complainant having purchased two packets of Happy Den Chewing Gum sugar free and packets are found empty he is a consumer within Consumer Protection Act.
- The facts remains that complainant purchased the product. It was found empty. Product is manufactured by opposite party and it was distributed in Kerala. Opposite party claims all its products are produced on quality standards, weight is also certified. But says few of their waste products reached the market and company has taken up the matter legally by filing police complaints for taking action against those responsible.
- Opposite party did not adduce any evidence. Hence there is no rebuttal evidence. Complainant has taken up the cause of plight of every consumer who are the silent sufferers of exploitation in the marketing filed. Complainant truthfully deposed that he is not pressing his claim for compensation but his aim is to highlight the bitter experience when he purchased the product. Complainant paid Rs.10/- as its price. It should contain six pieces chewing gum. But when opened it was found empty. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of complainant in this regard. Thus there is deficiency in service of opposite party in not guaranteeing availability of product in enclosed packets. Therefore complainant is entitled to compensation. In Treaty Construction Vs Ruby Tower Co-op Hsg Society Ltd 2019 O AIR (SC) 3676 the Honourable Supreme Court of India held that relief even if not sought but emanating from record can be granted (para 10). In view of it, opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and cost to the petitioner.
- Thus complaint is allowed in part with a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) jointly and severally to the complainant towards deficiency in service for not ensuring availability of product inside the packet covers as nominal compensation. Opposite parties also directed to pay cost of litigation for a sum Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days of the receipts of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Copy of claim in the website
A2 – Chewing gum
A3 – Details of sales offices of OP
A4 – Cash bill by Divine bakery
A5 – Cash bill by ideal bakery
A6 – Affidavit
A7 – Copy of section 11 CPA
MO1 – Jar Carrying address of OP
MO2 & MO3 – Cover
Witness Examined
PW1 – T.C Narayanan
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
