BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT:THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC. 36 / 2006 TUESDAY THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2010. K. Prabakaran, S/o. Kamala Raj, No.56, Ramamoorthi Street, Mullipalayam, Vellore – 8. … Complainant. - Vs – The Proprietor, Mahaveera Provisions, Dealers in General Dry Fruits & Provisions, No.183, 184 Long Bazarr, Vellore – 4. … Opposite party. This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 21.6.2010, in the presence of Thiru. P.K. Sridhar, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. T.S. Kannaiyan, Advocate for the opposite party, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. 1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The opposite party is carrying on a trade in General Provisions under the name and style “ Mahaveera Provisions” and also dealers in General Dry fruits and provisions. That on 14.11.05 when the plaintiff had purchased ‘Saffron” worth about Rs.65/- from the opposite party with intend to give the Saffron to his pregnant wife, who programmed to consume the saffron in frequent intervals till her delivery. As a trade, the opposite party know pretty well that there is a staunch belief among pregnant women in Tamil Nadu, that intake to saffron along with milk would help in getting a baby with fair colour. That after purchase of Saffron from the opposite party, the complainant straight way went to his house and handed over the container to his wife in which saffron was packed. With eagerness in full flow, the complainant’s wife opened the container of saffron in the presence of the complainant and much to the shock and surprise of the complainant and his wife, the saffron purchased from the opposite party found to contain insects and beetles and their swarming over saffron caused nausea to the complainant’s wife. The complainant had reason to believe that the opposite party is indulging in unfair trade practice selling inferior, impure and substandard goods (provisions) in the shop. It is only due to the gross deficiency of service of the opposite party who alone are responsible and liable to compensate the complainant for the substandard goods. The complainant had been put to acute mental agony, physical stress and mental stress, despair on account of spoilt, substanded, inpure and unhygienic saffron sold to the complainant. He has prayed for this Forum directing the opposite party to pay the sum of Rs.65/- towards cost of saffron to the complainant and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and physical and mental stress and Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of this complaint. 2. The averment in the counter filed the by opposite party is as follows; The opposite party denies all the averments and allegations in the complaint as false except and save those that are specifically admitted herein. On the date of purchase there was small alteration between complainant and opposite party regarding the price of the saffron. The opposite party quoted the price of Rs.65/- but the complainant demanded for Rs.40/-. The opposite party refused to sell at Rs.40/- a wordy quarrel taken place. Finally complainant settled for Rs.65/- and purchased saffron. About ten days later the complainant came to opposite party’s shop with the saffron container. Nearly half of the quantity was used up. The complainant stated that after adding the saffron with milk the colour of the milk is not becoming red. The opposite party had replied that the saffron sold to complainant is 100% pure and it is the original product with brand name “RAMAIN’. It is very popular brand and renewed worldwide and the produce sold is very good quality. But opposite party is helpless and this fact regarding the colouring of the milk can be certified from the experts in that field. He sold original quality of saffron with branch name “RAMAIN” in very good condition and very much fit for human consumption. He did not sold any spoilt, substandard, unhygienic saffron as stated in the complaint and therefore the opposite party is not liable to pay compensation much less Rs.50,000/- as demanded in the complaint. Hence this complaint is to be dismissed with costs. 3. Now the points for consideration are: a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ? b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 4. Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked on the side of the complainant and no documents were marked on the side of the opposite party. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite party have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 5. POINT No.(a): The complainant contended that the contain of saffron purchased from the opposite party’s shop on 14.11.05 found to contain insects and beetles. Therefore the opposite party is indulging in unfair trade practice selling inferior, impure and substandard goods in the shop. It is only due to the gross deficiency of service of opposite party alone are responsible and liable to compensate the complainant for selling of substandard saffron. Hence, the complainant has been put to acute mental agony and mental stress on account of spoilt substandard and unhygienic saffron sold to the complainant. Mere allegation regarding the colouring of the milk and contain insect and beetles in the saffron cannot be accepted. The said allegation should be proved though laboratory test and certified from the expert in that filed. The complainant did not proved through the test or and certified from the expert in that filed. He did not sold any spoilt, substandard, unhygienic saffron as stated in the complaint and therefore the opposite party is not liable to pay compensation mentioned in the complaint. 6. It is admitted facts of the parties that the complainant had purchased saffron worth about Rs.65/- from the opposite party on 14.11.05 under Ex.A1, Cash bill. The contention of the complainant the saffron purchased from the opposite party found to contain insects and beetles and their swarming over saffron caused nausea to the complainant’s wife. According to the opposite party that the opposite party did not sold any spoilt, impure, substandard, unhygienic saffron to the complaint. The saffron sold to the complainant is 100% pure and it is the original product of good quality with brand name Ramain A sealed plastic cover marked as Ex.A2 on the side of the complainant and the complainant stated that the saffron contain in the said plastic cover purchased from the opposite party on 14.11.05 found to contain insects and beetles. But the opposite party denied the above contention. 7. To prove the allegation against the opposite party, regarding the saffron contain in the plastic cover Ex.A2, with insects and beetles should have been test in the lab and get opinion from the expert. But the complainant has not taken any efforts to test the saffron contain insects and beetles in the lab and get the expert opinion about the alleged impure and substandard saffron sold to the complainant from the shop of the opposite party. Without lab test or expert opinion about the saffron contain in the sealed plastic cover Ex.A2, the contention of the complainant that the opposite party is indulging in unfair trade practice selling inferior, impure and substandard saffron to the complainant on 14.11.05 is not acceptable. 8. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A6, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein. Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainant herein. 9. POINT NO : (b) In view of our findings on point (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein. We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him, in this complaint. Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein. 10. In this result this complaint is dismissed. No Costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 29 day of June 2010. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- 14.11.05 - X-copy of purchase bill. Ex.A2- -- - Saffron Container. Ex.A3- -- - X-copy of Registration receipt. Ex.A4- 25.11.05 - X-copy of Legal notice. Ex.A5- -- - Ack. Card. Ex.A6- 1.11.05 - Reply notice. Opposite party’s Exhibits: ..Nill.. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. | 
