Orissa

Cuttak

CC/308/2023

Hitesh Kumar Jena - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Smart - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jul 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.308/2023

Hitesh Kumar Jena,

S/o: Ashok Kumar Jena,

​                    At:Pithapur,PS: Badambadi,

                     Cuttack-753001.                                              ...Complainant

 

          Vrs.

 

1.        The Managing Director, Reliance Smart,

Reliance Industries Ltd., Maker Chamber iv,

Nariman Point, Mumbai-400027,

                      Maharastra.

 

2.       The Manager, Reliance Smart,

Reliance Retail Ltd.,Plot No.350/934,

Khata No.165-D1,162,D-1,264-D-1,

163-D1, Mouza Cuttack Town Unit 10,

            Cuttack

 

3.       The Customer Care Executive,

Tata Consumer Products Ltd.,

Kirloskar business park,Harbal,

                 Bengengaluru-560024.

                   Karnataka.                                                                ...Opp.Parties

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    15.09.2023

Date of Order:  30.07.2024

 

For the complainant:            Mr. B.K.Sinha,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.1& 2:            Mr. P.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps No.3      :            Mr. A.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates. 

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President          

Case of the complainants as made out from the complaint petition bereft unnecessary details in short is that he had visited the shop of O.P no.2 and had purchased many articles there.  He had paid the consideration prices in cash.  The complainant could notice that on one of his purchased food item namely “TATA Soulful Millets Muesli”, the packet thereof do not contain/exhibit either the manufacturing date or the expiry date.  The complainant had intimated such fact to O.P no.2 but O.Pno.2 had refused to entertain such complaint of the complainant.  As per the FSS Packaging and Labelling Regulatiion 2011 the date of manufacturing and the date of expiry are both mandatory on the wrapper/package of each of the food items.  The matter was subsequently sent to the Joint Director-cum-Chief Food Analyst where it was dictated that the product was unsafe to be consumed.   The O.Ps thus had intentionally sold the alleged food packet which is unfit for human consumption and is hazardous to health of the complainant.  The complainant has filed his case before this Commission seeking a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for his mental agony and harassment by the O.Ps alongwith another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards his litigation expenses.  He has also prayed for any other order in the interest of justice.

          Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       All the three O.Ps have contested this case but O.Ps no.1 & 2 have jointly filed their written version in this case whereas O.P no.3 has filed his separate written version.

          As per the written version of O.Ps no.1 & 2, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be rejected.  According to the O.Ps no.1 & 2, the allegation as made by the complainant relates to food item covered under Food Safety and Standard Act,2006.  The O.Ps have urged that the TATA Soulful Millets Muesli packet whose photo copy has been annexed by the complainant alongwith his complaint petition or has been sent to the laboratory for report, was not purchased from the store of O.P no.2.  They also dispute the visit of the complainant to the store of O.P no.2 on 9.6.2023.  But they urge that the SP,Milli Muesli taken by someone from the store had printed the manufacturing date as well as the expiry date on it.  Thus, it is the contention of O.Ps no.1 & 2 through their written version that the complaint petition as filed against them is devoid of any merit which is liable to be dismissed with cost.

          O.P no.3 has filed written version through one Prabal Sinha Mahapatra working as Authorised Signatory for Tata Consumer Products Limited who has mentioned that the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant has suppressed the material facts with malafide intention which is liable to be dismissed.  According to him, Tata Consumer Products Limited is not the ‘manufacturer’ of TATA Soulful Millets Muesli fruit and nut and is only a ‘marketer’ of the said product.  The complainant had not reached the O.P no.3 and had not given them an opportunity to inspect the product to know regarding it’s genuinity.  Thus, it is prayed through the written version by O.P no.3 to dismiss the complaint petition as filed. 

The complainant has filed evidence affidavit which when perused, it appears to be a reiteration of the contents of the complaint petition as filed by him.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether the O.Ps have practised any unfair trade and if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

On perusal of the complaint petition, written versions, written notes of submission as filed from both the sides, evidence affidavit filed by the complainant as well as the copies of documents available in the case record, it is noticed that as per Annexure-1, copy of the purchase receipt-cum-bill which is  produced by the complainant, in this case, reflects that the O.Ps no.1 & 2 had sold one SF MILI MSLIFH500G for a price of Rs.150/- on 9.6.2023.  As per Anneures-2 & 3 which are photo copies of the said product and annexed in this case by the complainant, reflect that the price of the said product is of Rs.150/- but nowhere it reflects the manufacturing date or the expiry date thereon.  According to the complainant, when the said product as sent to the office of the Joint Director-cum-Chief Food Analyst by him on 4.8.2023, a report was produced indicating that the said TATA Soulful Millets Muesli fruit and nut (breakfast cereal) sample which falls under Regulation No.2.4.35 of the Food Safety and Standard(Food Products and Food Additive) Regulatiion,2011 was received in the said office on 15.7.2023 where it was dictated that the sample of the said food product was ‘substandard and unsafe’.  In this context, the O.Ps no.1 & 2 have stated that the photo copies of those, which are annexed by the complainant in this case are not the packaging wrappers of the food product sold from the shop of O.P no.2.  According to them, someone had purchased the same food product from the shop of O.P no,2 but they vehemently rebut the absence of the manufacturing date and expiry date on the package/wrapper of their sold product.

           Be that as it may, as per Annexure-1 which is copy of the bill/purchase receipt of the said O.Ps, it clearly specifies about the sale of the said food product for a price of Rs.150/- on 9.6.23.  The complainant has produced the photo copy of the said bill as well as photo copies of the package containing the said food product which lacks, the manufacturing date and expiry date as those are not printed on it.  O.Ps no.1 & 2 though admit that someone had purchased the same product from the shop of O.P no.2 on 9.6.23, they cannot confirm that if it was the complainant who had purchased the same.  Thus, according to the O.Ps no.1 & 2, the said product as sold by them had the manufacturing date and expiry date printed on it.  They dispute the photo copy of the wrappers/package cover as per Annexurs-2 & 3 which are submitted by the complainant together with his complaint petition alleging that it was sold by them.  If according to them the said sold product had contained the manufacturing and expiry date on it, why should and for what reason would the complainant remove those from the said wrappers/package covers and has filed photo copies of those together with his complaint petition since when no animosity or previous grudge in any manner has not been elucidated and established by the said O.Ps against the complainant of this case.  Thus, for the reason best known to O.Ps no.1 & 2 who had tried to make out knot in the air so as to wriggle out from the liability here in this case. 

Thus, this Commission comes to an irresistible conclusion that though the O.Ps no.1 & 2 have desperately tried to caste aspersions by submitting that the products sold by them to be differing  from the product sent to the State Food Testing Laboratory by the complainant,   from the facts and circumstances of this case it is crystal clear beyond any shadows of doubt that infact the O.Ps no.1 & 2 had sold the TATA Soulful Millets Muesli fruit and nut (breakfast cereal) to the complainant on 9.6.2023 for a consideration of Rs.150/- and the wrapper/package cover of the said product had no manufacturing date and expiry date on it. This clearly indicates the practice of unfair trade by them.  When such fact was brought to the notice of O.P no.2, no positive response was made by either of the O.Ps which also signifies their deficiency in service.  This, issue thus goes in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and he is thus entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him from the O.Ps here in this case.  Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps  who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as fine in the Govt. Welfare fund for such unfair trade practice by them.  The O.Ps are further directed to refund the complainant the cost of the product  Soulful Millets Muesli fruit and nut (breakfast cereal)  i.e., Rs.150/- with 12% interest thereon effective from 9.6.2023 till the total amount is quantified.  The O.Ps are also directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for his mental agony and harassment as well as to pay a further sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the cost of his litigation.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of July,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                                                      

                                                                                      Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

 

 

                                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                      Member