Kerala

Wayanad

CC/99/2013

P.K. Hussain, Parakkandi House, Kavumannam (P.O), Kalpetta, Wayanad. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Salam. P.P, Kavumannam Medicals , Kavumannam (P.O), Kalpetta, Wayanad District, - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jun 2014

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CIVIL STATION ,KALPETTA
WAYANAD-673122
PHONE 04936-202755
 
Complaint Case No. CC/99/2013
 
1. P.K. Hussain, Parakkandi House, Kavumannam (P.O), Kalpetta, Wayanad.
Pin 673122
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Renimol Mathew MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:-

The complaint is filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 to get compensation and further relief for the damages caused by the complainant by using opposite party's product.

 

2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased one bottle of 'Elaneer Kuzhambu' from the shop of opposite party No.1 which was manufactured by opposite party No.2. Once he had applied few drops 'Elaneer Kuzhambu' to his eyes, he felt itching and irritation, this continued for next day and the eyes become reddish colour. So complainant consulted with an eye specialist and took medicine after administration of that medicine the problem in his eyes were cured. The complainant alleges that the problem of his eyes was due to the unfair trade practice of opposite party's, that the product applied in his eyes was out dated, the date of manufacture mentioned in the Carton of the product is 2010 and also mentioned that “ Best before two years”. The complainant purchased this eye drops on 29.05.2013 and used this in the very next day itself. The complainant again alleges that opposite party No.1 sold outdated product which cause many difficulties to him. Due to the timely consultation of an eye specialist prevented severe problems to his eyes. Complainant alleges that this act of the opposite party's is unfair trade practice. So the complainant prays for an Order to withdraw the product from the market and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of this proceedings.

 

3. On being served opposite parties appeared and filed version denying all these allegations. The opposite parties contented that there is no unfair trade practice from the part of them. Opposite party No.2 is dealing with manufacturing Ayurveda drugs and they have high reputation in the entire transactions. Opposite party No.2 distributed the products of batch No.5990 manufactured in 2012. They have never sold any drug beyond the expiry date. There was some printing mistake in the batch No.5990, instead of printing 2012 it was mistakenly printed as 2010. Opposite party No.2 further stated that they have already initiated legal proceedings against the man who printed the label. So there is no unfair trade practice conducted by this opposite parties and prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

 

4. On considering the complaint and version the following points are to be considered.

1. Whether there any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

 

 

5. Point No.1:- In addition to complaint complainant filed chief affidavit and examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3, MO1 and MO2 are marked. Ext.A1 is the Bill issued by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant dated 29.05.2013. Ext.A2 is the prescription by Eye specialist. Ext.A3 is the bill issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant dated 15.11.2013. MO1 and MO2 are the packed bottles of 'Elaneer Kuzhambu'. The manufacturing date mentioned in the MO1 is 2010 and in MO2 is 2012. But the batch No.5990 is same in both the cartons. Opposite parties not adduced any oral evidence. The purchase bill produced by the opposite party No.1 is marked as Ext.B1 series. Which shows that on 08.04.2013 opposite party No.1 purchased some products including 'Elaneer Kuzhambu' of batch No.5990 and expiry of 10/14 from Richu Druglines, Kalpetta. Complainant argued that he was using this product for the last 8 years but this is the first time he felt this problems. Complainant bought MO1 on 29.05.2013, the batch number mentioned in the Carton is 5990 and the manufacturing date mentioned in the Ext.A1 is 2010. But in the Carton it is mentioned as “best before two years”. On verification of MO1 and Ext.A1 we finds that the product which was sold by opposite party No.1 was out dated. The vital element in this case is that this is an eye drop, if anything happens due to the usage of this outdated medicine it would have affected the eye sight of the complainant. So a minor negligence from the part of the manufacturer and distributor will affect the health of general public. Moreover opposite party No.2 admitted in his version that there is printing mistake in the Carton of MO1, whether it is a printing mistake or not, absolutely there is no evidence. Admission of printing date on the carton that it is 2010, nothing else is needed to have a finding against the opposite parties. Complainant is produced MO2 but in its Carton the manufacturing date is shown as 2012 and the Batch No.5990 is same as MO1 and the opposite party No.1 admitted that this is a printing mistake and they have initiated legal proceedings against the printer. On going through the evidence and records we finds defects in carton of MO1. More than that complainant produced the prescription of eye specialist dated 31.05.2013. There is nothing to disbelieve the complainant and his case. So we finds that there deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.

 

6. Point No.2:- The Point No.1 is found in favor of the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation. The Point No.2 is decided accordingly.

 

In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) as compensation and opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) as cost of this proceedings. This Order must be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.

 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of June 2014.

Date of Filing:05.06.2013.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

 

 Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. P. K. Hussain. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Cash Bill. Dt:29.05.2013.

A2. Prescription by Eye Specialist. Dt:31.05.2013.

A3. Cash Bill. Dt:15.11.2013

MO1. Bottle of Elaneer Kuzhambu Manufactured in November 2010.

MO2. Bottle of Elaneer Kuzhambu Manufactured in November 2012.

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

B1 (Series). a. Purchase Bill. Dt:08.04.2013.

b. Purchase Bill. Dt:08.04.2013

c. Purchase Bill. Dt:08.04.2013.

 Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Renimol Mathew]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.