1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased 2 kg paneer of O.P. No. 2 from the O.P.No. 1 for Rs. 540/- vide bill no. 123 dated 02.07.2019 and the same was stapled in a polythene.  It is alleged that after returning to home, he found that O.P. No.1 has supplied Gwaala fresh paneer instead of OMFED paneer and on being asked, O.P. No. 1 replied that Gwaala Fresh Paneer was tied up with OMFED for marketing and is of good quality.  It is also alleged that after using the same, he found that Gwaala fresh paneer is seemed to be synthetic in nature and tasteless and on enquiry about the same with the plant manager of OMFED at Malkangiri, who replied that they are not manufacturing the said paneer.Thus showing unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, he filed this case with a prayer to refund the costs of 2kg paneer and Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs from the O.Ps.

2. The O.P. No. 1 appeared and filed his counter denying the allegations of complainant contending that he is not the dealer of  OMFED nor of Gwaala Fresh Paneer and he has not issued any bill to the complainant and with other contentions, he prayed to dismiss the case.

3. The O.P. No. 2 appeared and filed their counter denying the allegations of complainant have contended that O.P. No. 1 is not their authorized dealer for distributing the OMFED product and their products are promoted through only authorized dealer.  Further contended that they follow the guidelines of the company as such there is no scope of tieing up with any other company and they do not have any knowledge about the O.P. No.1, as such showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case.

4. Complainant and O.P. No. 2 have filed their respective documents.  Whereas the O.P. No. 1 did not choose to file any document in support of his contentions.

5. Heard from the parties at length.  Perused the case record and documents available therein.   

6. In the instant case, it is documentary facts that the complainant has purchased 2 kg Paneer from O.P. No. 1 and paid Rs. 540/- vide his retail bill no. 123 dated 02.07.2019.  Complainant filed document in support of his allegations.  The allegations of complainant is that while he demanded paneer of  OMFED (O.P. No. 2), O.P. No. 1 cunningly sold paneer of Gwaala fresh company which is synthetic in nature and tasteless.  Whereas the contentions of O.P. No. 2 is that O.P. No. 1 is not their authorized dealer and they do not have any knowledge about the O.P. No. 1 and to support their contentions, they have filed list of their authorized dealers.Whereas the O.P. No. 1 has admitted that he is not the dealer of O.P. No. 2 and has not issued any bill to the complainant.We have gone through the retail bill filed by the complainant and found that the said bill was issued in the name and style of “Sri Sai Srinivasa Bakery, Main Road, Malkangiri” which is the shop of O.P. No. 1.Though the O.P. No. 1 made objection to rebut the retail receipt, but to make it contrary, the he did not choose to file any supportive documents nor any affidavit also.Without any contradictory document, it cannot be presumed that the said bill does not belong to O.P. No. 1 and is not being issued by him.Hence we feel, the O.P. No.1 has sold the alleged paneer, which is synthetic in nature and to save his skin, is taking some false plea which is not permissible as per law.

7. Further it is ascertained that the O.P. No.1 has not taken any single plea regarding sale of the alleged product, which is, as per complainant is defective one, and the said version is never challenged by the O.P. No. 1 neither in his counter version nor at the time of hearing also.  And the versions of complainant became unrebuttal.  In this connection, we have fortified with the Judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another, wherein it is held that that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”    

8. As per the above discussion, we feel O.P. No. 1 has followed the principle of unfair trade practice which caused mental agony to complainant.  It is also ascertained that complainant has not sustained any sort of hazardous / danger to his life by using the alleged products as he has not consumed the same. Hence we feel, complainant sustained only mental agony due to unfair practice of the O.P. No. 1, for which he deserves some compensation and costs.  Considering the above facts Rs. 2,000/- will be just and proper if awarded.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                              ORDER

        Complaint petition is allowed in part.  O.P. No. 1 is herewith directed to refund the costs of alleged product of Rs. 540/- and to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and costs for causing mental agony to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the said amount will carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of order till payment.  

        Since there is no specific allegation against the O.P. No. 2, no order against them.

        Pronounced the order in the open Forum on this the 6^th day of July, 2020.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.