KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 13/2024
ORDER DATED: 26.03.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 611/2022 of CDRC, Thrissur)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONERS:
- Shesha Ayurveda Shop No. 1, House No. 3-62, Nallagauda Village, Rangareddy, Serilingampally, Hyderabad, Telengana-500 019.
- Shesha Ayurveda, Dwaraka, Poojappura Temple Road, Aroor, Alappuzha-688 534.
(By Advs. N.G. Mahesh & Sheeba Sivadasan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Renuka Menon, Villa 3, Parappilly Avenue, Nellikunnu, Eastfort P.O., Paravattani, Thrissur-680 005.
ORDER
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
This revision petition has been filed by the opposite parties 1 & 2 in C.C. No. 611/2022 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (District Commission for short).
2. The complaint was filed against the opposite parties for compensation alleging deficiency in service and for false marketing methods with regard to their product ‘Nilini Hair Care’. When the complainant used the above oil serious allergic conditions had developed. She was constrained to undergo steroid treatment and the above complaint was filed for getting compensation.
3. The 1st opposite party had filed version stating that the advertisement was only that no synthetic chemicals were added in the manufacturing process and hence there is no deficiency of service on their part.
4. The complainant had filed I.A. No. 11/2024 for sending the product to any Government Laboratory for expert analysis. This application was allowed disregarding the serious objections raised by the revision petitioner.
5. According to the revision petitioner, the order of the District Commission is contrary to law and the evidence adduced in the case. According to her the District Commission has failed to consider the fact that the complainant who is a practicing lawyer in Thrissur and her husband were trying to tarnish the image of the 1st opposite party. The District Commission has failed to consider the fact that the product was purchased in 2021 and its expiry date had already elapsed. If the complaint was a genuine one the complainant might have filed the petition in 2021. The product has been tested in NABL accredited lab multiple times and the lab result clearly shows that the PPD content in the product is NIL. On these grounds the petitioner would seek for setting aside the order of the District Commission.
6. When the matter came up for admission, we heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the copy of the order passed by the District Commission and the Memorandum of Revision. We found that the records need not be called for from the District Commission for the disposal of this revision.
7. According to the revision petitioner, the proposed examination of the product will not improve the case of the complainant as the expiry date of the product had already elapsed. The District Commission had only allowed the complainant to send the disputed product for laboratory examination. The right of a litigant to collect evidence cannot be curtailed. The trial is yet to begin. The request of the complainant is to seek for a report as to whether the product contains paraphenylenediamine which could be ascertained through the test. The test is sought to be conducted by the Chief Government Analyst, Regional Drug Testing Laboratory, Kakkanad.
8. The jurisdiction contained in Sec. 47 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 could be invoked only if there is any irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the District Commission. The request to conduct a test of the product in the laboratory cannot be treated as an unnecessary demand. Hence we find no irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the District Commission. This revision lacks merits. Hence it is dismissed.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
