Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 277.
Instituted on : 10.6.2019.
Decided on :19.11.2019.
Shuchi Goyal Advocate wife of Mr. Atul Goyal Advocate, resident of House No.618/3, Babra Mohalla, Rohtak.
……..Complainant.
Vs.
- Reliance Fresh Private Ltd., Shopping Complex at Shahnai Banquet Mansarover Park, Rohtak, Haryana 124001.
- Reliance Retial Limited 3rd Floor, Court House, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-400002.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Yogender Dalal, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased Cheese cubes of Mother Dairy having batch no.082290C0, manufactured on 17 August, 2018, vide Bill no.72. The said product of the complainant got expired on 17 May, 2019 as per the standards by Mother Dairy and best before period written on the product packing. But still the product was on shelves for customers to buy despite being outdated, which is clear negligence on the part of Reliance and having sold them to the complainant amounts to ‘unfair trade practice’ as defined under Consumer Protection Act. The complainant found the product rotten after reaching the home. The best before date had been hidden intentionally behind the sticker of revised amount. The complainant mailed the concerned authority on 18 May, 2019. The respondent has replied the email and stated that matter has been resolved and one of their representative named Sunil Kumar, Assistant Manager Reliance Fresh, had made several calls to the complainant in order to convince him to accept the product replacement but refused to compensate for the harassment and mental agony that cannot be compensated by just replacing the product. There is unfair trade practice and negligent service on the part of respondents, due to which, complainant has suffered a huge mental agony and harassment at the hands of respondents. Because the consumption of rotten dairy products can cause severe illness and even death. Hence, this complaint, and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay the product amount of Rs.56/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment as well as Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply submitted that the product in question “Mother Diary Cheese Cubes” in the present complaint does not by itself ipso facto becomes inconsumable after the said period, but it remains consumable for a reasonable period. As the demand was unreasonable and offer to replace the product was made as a goodwill gesture, it was denied. The Opposite Party no.1 and 2 have not indulged into any unfair trade practices or the O.Ps herein are negligent as alleged. The demand of the complainant is hypothetical which has no legs to stand & not at all valid in the eyes of law. The opposite Party no.1 tried to resolve the issue at the first instance, but the complainant refused to do so, hence, the question of paying any compensation does not arise. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and closed his evidence on 01.10.2019. Ld. counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, and closed his evidence on dated 5.11.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per bill Ex.C1, complainant had purchased the cheese cubes for Rs.56/- on dated 18.05.2019. As per photocopy of pack Ex.C5, the date of packaging is 17.08.2018 and the best before date is 9 months from the date of packing. Hence the product got expired on 17.05.2019. But even then the same was sold to the complainant. Complainant sent an email Ex.C6 on the same day but only replacement offer was given to the complainant whereas the complainant has demanded compensation also. In this regard it is observed that as per the photograph of product in question placed on record as Ex.C3, the same was rotten badly as the product in question was expired on that date but still the same was kept for sale in the shelves of respondents, which amounts to unfair trade-practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.56/-(Rupees fifty six only) on account of cost of packet and also to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) on account of litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.11.2019.
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
