IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 31st day of July 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No.253/2022 (Filed on 24/11/2022)
Complainant : Jijomon Varghese,
Paremackal House,
Anikadu P.O,
Kottayam – 686 503.
Vs.
Opposite party : The Proprietor,
Apple Bee Restaurant,
Near Rani Hospital,
Kanjirappally.
O R D E R
SRI.MANULAL V.S, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is as follows :-
On 06/11/2022 the complainant went to the opposite party restaurant for having food. The complainant had ordered 6 nos. of alfam mandi. The opposite party had given half cooked alfam mandi which was inedible. Without knowing this the complainant took the food and when complaint raised by him, the employees of the opposite party behaved in a rude manner and abused him. After that the complainant started suffering from abdominal pain and heart burn. The complainant is forced to consult the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Kanjirappally and underwent treatment there as an outpatient. The complainant filed a complaint before the Food Safety Officer, Pala and police authorities at Kanjirappally. When the complainant demanded a bill with GST registration number, the opposite party refused to issue the same to the complainant. According to the complainant, due to the act of the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service he had suffered much physical and mental sufferings. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with Rs.5,000/- as cost of this litigation.
Though notice was duly served to the opposite party the opposite party neither cared to appear before the Commission nor to file version. Hence the opposite party was declared as exparte.
The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibits A1 and A2 from the side of complainant.
Based on the contention of the complaint and evidence on record, we would like to consider the following points :
Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and is entitled to any relief as prayed ?
POINTS 1 & 2 :-
The specific case of the complainant is that on 06/11/2022 he had visited the opposite party restaurant for his food. He had purchased 6 alfam mandi and the opposite party had delivered him half cooked alfam mandi which was inedible. Ext.A1 proves that the complainant had purchased a full and a half alfam mandi for an amount of Rs.1,280/-. It is alleged in the complaint that after having the aforesaid food, the complainant had suffered abdominal pain and heart burn and compelled to undergo treatment in Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Kanjirappally as an outpatient. Ext.A2 is the Casualty O.P Ticket issued from the General Hospital, Kanjirappally. On perusal of Ext.A2, we can see that the complainant had consulted and treated as outpatient in General Hospital, Kanjirappally with the complaint of gastric problems.
Inspite of receipt of notice from this Commission the opposite party did not care to appear before the Commission or to conduct the case properly. The opposite party did not care to contradict the case of the complainant with cogent evidence. In the absence of any contradictory evidence we have no other option to accept the case of the complainant that on 06/11/2022 the opposite party supplied a half cooked alfam mandi to the complainant for an amount of Rs.1,280/-. Being a service provider especially a restaurant which is under the authorised statutes and social commitments the opposite party is bound to deliver good and standard food which is suitable for eating by the general public in a hygiene condition.
As per Section 2(21) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ‘’goods’’ means every kind of movable property and includes ‘’food’’ as defined in Clause(j) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Food Security and Standards Act, 2006.
As per the Food Security & Standard Act, 2006, ‘’food’’ means any substance, whether processed or partially processed or unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption and includes primary food to the extent defined in clause(zk) genetically modified or engineered food or food containing such ingredients, infant food, packaged drinking water, alcoholic drink, chewing gum, and any substance, including water used into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment but does not include any animal feed, live animals unless they are prepared or processed for placing on the market for human consumption, plants, prior to harvesting, drugs and medicinal products, cosmetics, narcotic or psychotropic substances’. Provided that the Central Government may declare, by notification in the official gazette, any other article as food for the purposes of this Act having regards to its use, nature, substance or quality’’.
Thus the alfam mandi which was prepared for human consumption come in the purview of the Section 2.21 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, “selling of half cooked alfam mondi, which was not edible by the human being, the opposite party committed imperfection, shortcoming and inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by him under the various laws which were prevailed for the time being regulating the quality and quantity of food”.
Under the circumstances we have to keep in mind the better protection of the rights of the consumer which is clearly stated in the preamble of Consumer Protection Act 2019. On looking into the aforesaid circumstances and evidence as we discussed, we are of the opinion that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by selling inedible food to the complainant.
No doubt the complainant had suffered much physical and mental hardships after having the food from the opposite party restaurant and he was compelled to undergo treatment for ailment, which was an after effect of the said food. Considering the circumstances of the case we allow the complaint and pass the following order.
(a) We hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
(b) We hereby further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only)as cost of this litigation.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If not complied as directed, the compensation amount will carry 9% interest from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of July, 2023
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
Ext. A1 - Copy of Bill for Rs.1,280/- issued by the
opposite party
Ext.A2 - Copy of Casualty O.P Ticket dated 06/11/2022
issued from the General Hospital, Kanjirappally
Exhibits from the side of Opposite party :
Nil
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
