Orissa

Malkangiri

CC/34/2022

Sri KanhuCharanMishra, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor, Ganesh Pan Shop, Jayanagar, - Opp.Party(s)

Self

14 Dec 2022

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/34/2022
( Date of Filing : 09 May 2022 )
 
1. Sri KanhuCharanMishra,
aged about 52 years S/o Sri Ananda Mishra, Presently residing Main Road, Malkangiri, P.O. /P.S. / Dist. Malkangir.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Proprietor, Ganesh Pan Shop, Jayanagar,
P.O. :Jayanagar, P.S. Jeypore, Dist. Koraput
2. Manager, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Atmakuru Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, Pin. 522503.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sri Prafulla Kumar Panda PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. Salma Bano MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 14 Dec 2022
Final Order / Judgement

 

  1. This is case of alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the Opp. Parties.
  1. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant is that on 16.04.2022 he purchased 4 nos. of Pulpy Orange bottle from Opp. Party No. 1 which is manufactured by the Opp. Party No. 2 on consideration of Rs. 75/- each and paid Rs. 300/-. He alleges that after consuming 3 nos of bottle, he alongwith his family members felt some uneasiness and tasteless quality and found some dust particles floated inside the 4th no. bottle and did not consume the 4th one and the dust particles are visible in the naked eyes.  On complaint to the Opp. Parties he did not get any result and alleges that such type of impured products are hazardous to life, thus with other allegations he filed this case claiming the entire of costs of four nos. of bottle alongwith compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and costs of Rs. 20,000/- from the Opp. Parties.
  1. Opp. Party No. 1 though received the notice, did not choose to appear in the proceeding, hence he set exparte.
     
  2. Opp. Party No. 2 appeared through their Ld. Counsel, filed counter version admitting the production of the alleged products, have denied the allegations contending that complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions of the Act as there is nothing to show that the complainant has purchased the alleged product and they are using the state of art technology during the production of the products and also there is no privity of contract between the complainant and them.  Further contended that complainant has not filed any report as required under Section 13(1) (c) of the Act, 1986 and also contended that the complainant ought not to have purchased the alleged product if found any defects.  And with other contentions showing their no deficiency in service, have prayed to dismiss the case.

 

  1. Complainant filed the alleged products alongwith affidavit.  Whereas the Opp. Party No. 2 did not choose to file any documents.  Perused the case record and materials available in record.  Heard from the parties present at length.
  1. From the record and as per the submissions of the parties, it is ascertained that complainant purchased 4 nos. of Pulpy Orange bottle @ 75/- each and paid Rs. 300/- to the Opp. Party No. 1 which are manufactured by the Opp. Party No. 2.  As per submissions of complainant the alleged bottles are defective ones and some dust particles are floated inside one of the bottle.  Whereas the Ld. Counsel for Opp. Party No. 2 argued that the products are prepared for world class product under state of the art technology hence the complaint is a frivolous one.  Considering the submissions of both parties, we have verified the alleged bottle and found that some dust particles are floated inside the bottles which are clearly visible to the naked eye whereas the alleged bottle is fully packed and sealed one and no whole or like that, is made in the said bottle.  Hence we are of the view the alleged bottle contains such dust particles during its packaging time at the manufacturing level.
  1. It is also ascertained that the complainant might have suffered during consumption, but miserably failed to produce cogent evidence like medical certificate or prescription and medicines as suggested by any doctor.  Hence we are of the view that complainant has not sustained any physical injury but only might have suffered some sort of mental agony and considering the facts and law, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled compensation only for mental agony.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                               ORDER

            The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The Opp. Party No. 2, being the manufacturer of the alleged product is herewith directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- which includes costs of alleged products, compensation for causing mental agony and costs of litigation, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @10% interest from the date of this order till actual payment.

            Pronounced in the open Court on this the 16th day of November, 2022.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sri Prafulla Kumar Panda]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MS. Salma Bano]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.