Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/44/2018

Chandrakala - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.Natarajan Trader, Through its Proprietor S.Natarajan - Opp.Party(s)

Vasudevan

25 May 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

            Thiru.R.VENKATESAPERUMAL … MEMBER

 

F.A. Nos.43 & 44 of 2018

(Against the Orders, dated 21.12.2017, in C.C. Nos.24 & 25/14

on the file of  the DCDRF, Erode)

                                                    

                               Orders pronounced on:    25.05.2022

 

1. Chandrakala,

W/o.Baskaran,

D/o.Late Annamalai,

Pazhakkarar Street,

Chennimalai,

Perundurai Taluk,

Erode District.

 

2.Ravichandran,

S/o.Late Annamalai,

5/233/1, J.J. Nagar,

Ingur Road,

Chennimalai,

Perundurai Taluk,

Erode District.                      … Appellants in both the FAs/

                                             Complainants.

 

vs.

 

1.S.Natarajan Traders,

through its proprietor S.Natarajan,

Park Road,

Chennimalai,

Perundurai Taluk,

Erode District.

 

2. Lakshmi Ragi Flour Mills,

Lakshmi Masala Foods Private Limited,

2/1 46, Pudur,

Erode-2.

 

3. Venugopal,

S/o.Late Annamalai,

Pallipalayam,

Thiruchengode Taluk,

Namakkal District.                        …  Respondents in both F.As/

Oppose Parties.

 

             For Appellants         :  M/s.I.C.Vasudevan

             For RR-1 & 2           :  M/s.G.Mohana Krishnan

             For R-3                    :  M/s.J.Titus Enock.

These appeals came up for final hearing on 12.04.2022 and, after hearing the arguments of the counsels for the parties and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

 

COMMON ORDER

 

R.Subbiah, J. – President.

 

             Alleging that, after taking the food prepared with the ragi flour sold by OP No.1 & manufactured by OP No.2, the parents of the complainants fell ill and died despite treatment, the appellants herein/complainants filed two separate Complaints  viz., C.C. Nos.24 & 25 of 2014 for a compensation  of Rs.7 Lakh each in respect of the deceased - mother and father respectively, before the DCDRF, Erode, and, by separate Orders, dated 21.12.2017, both the complaints were dismissed by the District Forum, hence, the aggrieved appellants/complainants have come up with the present appeals.

 

             2. Although challenge is made to two separate impugned orders, inasmuch as the facts and points are one and the same, the appeals are disposed of by this Common Order.

       For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in the course of this order, as per their respective rankings before the District Forum.

             In brief, the case of the complainants, as given in the complaints filed before the District Forum, is as follows:-

            The parents of the complainants by name Annamalai and Susila, who were residents of  Chennimalai, purchased from the 1^st OP a packed item/ragi flour manufactured by the 2^nd OP; that, on 27.09.2012, they prepared dinner with the said ragi flour and, after having the same, they developed vomiting, whereupon, both were taken for treatment to Perundurai KMCH, wherefrom, they were referred for further treatment to Erode KMCH, where, the Doctors advised them for medical care at Coimbatore KMCH, however, they were admitted in the Government HQ Hospital, Erode, on 28.09.2012 at 11 AM.; that, despite treatment, Annamalai/father of the complainants died on 28.09.2012; that the mother of the complainants/Susila was taken for further treatment to SGMET Hospital at Erode, where, despite treatment in the ICU, she died on 01.10.2012; that the complainants had spent Rs.1.75 lakh for their mother and Rs.25,000/- for the father towards medical expenses; that it was found that they died due to consumption of poisonous ragi flour; that, on complaint, a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered at the Chennimalai Police Station; that post mortem was done in the Government HQ Hospital,  Erode; that the ragi flour was sent for chemical analysis and poison was detected; that, as per the Lab Report, the flour was unfit for human consumption; that the ragi flour stored in the shop of the 1^st OP was destroyed by the police after seizure; and that the poisonous substance in the ragi flour was the cause of death, hence, the complaints, seeking the District Forum to direct OP Nos.1 and 2  to pay the complainants Rs.4 lakh as compensation for the loss of their father & mother/Annamalai & Susila, medical expenses of Rs.2 lakh incurred for both the deceased and Rs.1 lakh for the mental agony caused, in total, a sum of Rs.14 lakh (Rs.7 lakh in each case), besides costs of the petitions.

 

             3.  The 1^st OP resisted the complaint by filing a written version, wherein, among other things, it is stated thus:-

             The alleged purchase of ragi flour from the 1^st OP by the deceased/parents of the complainants is denied; that the complainants are bound to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased; that no piece of evidence was produced to suggest that the alleged ragi flour was purchased from this OP; that the parents of the complainants are not consumers as defined in the CP Act;  that this OP did not sell the ragi flour to the deceased for any consideration; that the claim made cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings; that no poisonous substance was noted in the chemical analysis report, hence, the complainants are not entitled to claim any compensation; that no proceedings were initiated against this OP for the   sale of any adulterated food item;  that even if the deceased had prepared food using the ragi flour, the same could not have been done without adding other substances like water, oil, salt, vegetables, etc., thus, the complainants cannot blame this OP as if the cause of death was by consuming the ragi flour alone; and that, only to extract money, the complainants filed the cases with false allegations, hence, the same may have to be dismissed with  costs.

 

       4. In the version filed by them, the 2^nd OP denied the allegations made in the complaint and, in brief, stated that the flour in question was never sold by them or the 1^st OP to the deceased; that none of the reports indicate detection of any poisonous substance in the flour in question, hence, the cause of the death of the deceased might be due to some other reason and not because of taking the ragi food as alleged by the complainants; and that the claim itself being highly vexatious, the complaints are liable to be dismissed with costs.

 

     `       5. In the version filed by the 3^rd OP, who is said to be one of the legal heirs of the deceased, by re-stating the case and claim of the complainants, he sought the District Forum for proper apportionment of the compensation payable, to ensure his part of the share.

 

        6. To substantiate the claim and counter-claim, the parties filed their respective proof affidavits and, while the complainants marked 11 documents as Exs.A1 to A11,  the 1^st OP marked 4 documents as Exs.B1 to B4.  The District Forum, after analysing the materials made available, by separate orders, dismissed both the complaints, inter alia, holding that the complainants failed to prove that the deceased had purchased the ragi flour in question from the 1^st OP, thus, they do not fall within the definition of ‘consumers’.  Aggrieved thereby, the complainants have come up with the present Appeal.

 

         7.  Heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

             It is the stand of the complainants that, when the 1^st OP/retailer was not in the habit of issuing bills for selling the items, by taking note of the surrounding circumstances and suggestive materials in the form of flour cover with manufacturing print under Ex.A9, the District Forum could have adopted a pragmatic approach to discern the veracity in the allegations against the OPs at least in the light of the analysis report which is quite specific that the ragi flour seized was not fit for human consumption, which means, consumption of such item by the parents of the complainants might have resulted in fatal complications that led to their death.  But, by completely ignoring such suggestive materials pointing towards the negligence & unfair trade practice on the part of OP Nos.1 and 2, in a lackadaisical manner, the District Forum rushed to dismiss the case by generally stating that the complainants failed to prove that their parents had purchased the ragi flour in question from the 1^st OP.  It is unnecessary for the complainants to file a case against the retailer/1st OP and the manufacturer/2nd OP, if really their parents did not purchase from the 1^st OP the unsafe ragi flour, the consumption of which was the definite cause of their death. Further, the FIR under Ex.A8 fortifies the case of the complainants that both the deceased died only because of the complications developed after taking the food prepared with the ragi flour purchased from the 1^st OP.  The materials adduced by the complainants are thus quite suggestive in nature about the service deficiency & unfair trade practice on the part of OP Nos.1 and 2 in having sold unsafe/unfit edible item for human consumption, however, the District Forum failed to approach the case with a sense of logic & practicality but apparently hurried to dismiss the claims, hence, the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with by this commission.

              On the contrary, it is the stand of the OPs that there is no single piece of evidence to show that the ragi flour in question was ever purchased from the 1^st OP/retailer, hence, the only probability would be, the death of the complainants’ parents might be due to some other reason and not definitely, because of taking the ragi flour as alleged in the complaint.  The Lab Report is clear and categoric that there was no poisonous substance detected in the flour and, on the face of the same, the edifice of the complainants’ case is totally destroyed.  Though it has been stated by the complainants that an FIR under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered, no proceedings were thereafter initiated against the OPs.  The District Forum, after broadly examining the issues and finding no basis to accept the case of the complainants, rightly dismissed the claims and hence, there is no scope for interference.

             8. In our considered opinion, the case of the complainants does not deserve acceptance for a bunch of reasons.  Firstly, the complainants miserably failed to prove that the deceased had, in fact, purchased the ragi flour in question from the shop of the 1^st OP.  In other words, when it is not even proved with tangible evidence that the deceased were consumers of the product in question that was purchased for consideration on a particular date only from the 1^st OP, the complainants cannot maintain any case against the OPs as seller/manufacturer merely based on the averments repeated in the complaint.  Secondly, although, by referring to the Food Analyst Report under Ex.A11 which states ‘sample is an unsafe food’, it has been argued that unsafe food also might have caused death, the said argument has to be repelled as such for the reason that there is a vast difference between an  unsafe item and a poisonous substance and both cannot be equated to have the same effect.  In other words, taking a poisonous substance would result in lethal complications that may cause death, whereas, unsafe items may not, in general, pose any life threat but may cause health problems that are manageable with proper medical care. Thirdly, from the records, in particular Ex.B3/Forensic Report, we find that the said report ruled out any poisonous content in the ragi flour and similarly, Ex.B4 viscera report says that poison was not detected in the visceral organs.  Finally, no suggestive material is made available to draw any inference that the ragi flour consumed by the deceased otherwise acted as a poisonous agent to cause the death.  In fact, the District Forum has considered all relevant aspects in a broad and exhaustive manner and the reasons assigned by it being cogent and convincing; there is no scope for interference by this Commission.

             9. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed as devoid of any merit, by confirming the impugned orders, dated 21.12.2017, passed by the DCDRF, Erode, in C.C. Nos.24 and 25 of 2014.       No costs.        

 

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                           R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT.

 

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/May/2022.