Orissa

Dhenkanal

CC/90/2017

Patitapaban Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop. Shree Ganesh Medicine Store & Others - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DHEKANAL

                                                C.C.Case No. 90 of 2017

Patitapabana Mishra, aged about 49 years

S/o Janardan Mishra of Gandhimandir Road,

P.S: Town, PO/Dist: Dhenkanal, At present Advocate Dhenkanal

District Bar Association, Dhenkanal                              ….......Complainant

                                                                Versus

1) Prop. Shree Ganesh Medical Store,

    At: Bus Stand, PO/PS: Dist: Dhenkanal

2) Chief Managing Director,

     INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS Ltd.,

     At-85, DIDC Estate Naroda, Ahmehabad, PIN-382330      …......Opp.Parties

Present: Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy, Member

                 Sri Purna Chandra Mishra, Member

Counsel: For the complainant:  In person

                  For the Opp. Party No.1 Panchanan Mallick

                  For the Opp. Party No.2 Amrit Mishra & Sukumar Patnaik

Date of argument: 22.5.2018

Date of order: 30.5.2018

                                                                                JUDGMENT

Sri Purna Chandra Mishra, Member

                The complainant has filed the present case U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opp. Parties alleging deficiency in service thereby  praying   therein for compensation  of Rs. 80,000/- for causing deficiency in service and harassment and unfair trade practices along with prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to  exchange the looz liquid medicine   and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the litigation.

1)            Very briefly, the case of the complainant  is  that on 28.10.2017 he purchased one looz Lactulose Solution (Looz Liquid) to cure his constipation problem on payment of Rs. 525/-  from the shop of the O.P.No.1 vide batch No. W55110.  The complainant demanded a money receipt  but the O.P.No.1 refused to issue any money receipt.  The complainant when opened the seal of the bottle found that the said looz liquid bottle is a defective one and the inner delivery pump of the bottle is not functioning for which the liquid medicine is not coming out for  use and  he could not use the medicine in time.  Due to the defective bottle the complainant sustained pain and pain increased severely. On the next day morning the complainant went to the shop of the O.P.No.1 and showed him the defective bottle and requested him to exchange the defective bottle and to supply money receipt but the O.P.No.1 flatly refused to change the defective bottle  and also denied to give money receipt.  The O.P.No.2 is the manufacturing company who has made such a defective product and thereby committed unfair trade practice.  Therefore, the complainant has come up before this Forum seeking relief as prayed for in the complaint petition.   

                2) The Opp. Parties appeared and filed their written version.  It is in the version of the Opp. Party No.1 the allegations of the complainant are false  and liable to be dismissed. The complainant is not a consumer as he has not hired any services on payment of consideration.  The complainant has no cause of action to file the case  against the O.P.No.1.  The Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint as the O.P.No.1 is no way related to O.P.No.2.  It is denied that the complainant has purchased  one looz Lactulose solution (looz Liquid) from the O.P.No.1 on payment of Rs. 525/- on 28.10.2017 vide Batch No. W55110.  It is also denied that the complainant after payment demanded money receipt and the O.P No.1 denied.  It is also not admitted that the medicine bottle is a defective one.  It is further stated that the complainant has not purchased any medicine for any consideration for which he is not a consumer.  Accordingly, it is pleaded to dismiss the case against him

3)            The Opp. Party No.2 in his written version has averred that the case is not maintainable in the eye of law and facts.  The Forum has  no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute.  There is no cause of action against the O.P.No.2  as the complainant is no way related to  manufacturer  and the present case is barred by limitation for which it is liable to be dismissed.  The O.P.No.2 has no knowledge about the purchase of the Looz Lactulose solution by the complainant on 28.10.2017 from the O.P.No.1.  The O.P.No.2 has never supplied any defective drug to the market.  After manufacturer of drug bottling process is completed by automatic mechanized process .  After checking thoroughly each product with utmost vigilance, products were sent to various C& F agent to several places.  If any product is found defective there is sufficient scope for exchange, so the allegation of selling defective drug bottle with defective delivery pump to the complainant by O.P.No.1 is denied.  The O.P.No.2 had never produced any defective items till date and thus the allegations of the complainant are false and denied.  Accordingly, it is pleaded to dismiss the case as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.No.2.

4)       That the petitioner has relied on the medicine bottle and the Opp. Parties have not relied on any document nor  any of the parties have  filed any documents.  Neither of the parties have filed any oral evidence in support of their case.

5)         The sole allegation of the petitioner is that he had purchased one looz Lactulose Solution (Looz liquid)  on payment of Rs. 525/- from the shop of O.P.No.1 for which he has not granted any money receipt.  When he opened the seal of the bottle he found that the bottle is a defective one and the inner delivery system of the bottle is not functioning for which liquid medicine is not coming out for his use.  As he approached the O.P.No.1 to take back the defective bottle he refused to take it back for which he was compelled to file this case before this Forum alleging defect in the bottle and deposited the impugned bottle in the Forum subsequently which was marked as M.O-I during the course of hearing.   On the date of hearing the bottle was brought to the Court room   and the petitioner was requested to give a demonstration of the bottle to ascertain whether the mechanism of the bottle is working properly or not.  When the complainant applied pressure it was found that the liquid medicine is coming out in the pipe in a normal way when pressure was applied on the bottle.      Subsequently the learned Advocates for the O.P.No.1 & 2 were also requested to examine the bottle and it was also noticed that the liquid is coming out of the bottle as usual and no defect was found in the bottle.  When the demonstration was conducted in the open Forum in presence of all present in the Forum at the relevant time  it was found that the bottle is free from  defects for which we had no other option but to come to a conclusion that the medicine bottle in question is free from defects as alleged.      The   fact of demonstration of the bottle in the open Forum was recorded in the order sheet and all the three Advocates have put their signature on the result of examination and demonstration of the impugned bottle without any objection.  Since the  medicine bottle  with its system is found to be in perfect order the petitioner failed to prove the allegations against the O.Ps and hence the order.   

                                                                ORDER

                In the result, the complaint petition is dismissed on contest.  In the peculiar facts and circumstances parties are left to bear their own cost.

 

(Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy)                (Sri Purna Chandra Mishra)

                  Member                                             Member