DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 104 of 23.3.2018

                                      Decided on:   13.8.2021

Rajinder Singh S/o Jaswant Singh, resident of 7B-Majithia Enclave, Patiala. 147005.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Shubham Sweets, Ablowal, Patialal.
2. The Consumer Services Manager, PEPSICO HOLIDINGS PVT. LTD. P.O. Box No.27 DLF Qutab Enclave Phase 1, Gurgaon – 122002 Haryana.                                                    …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM                    Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

                                       Sh.Rajinder Singh complainant in person.

                                      Opposite party No.1 exparte.

                                      Sh.Damandeep Singh, counsel for OP No.2.                

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Rajinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Shubham Sweets and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant bought 10 packets of Kurkure salted peanuts for Rs.5/-each manufactured by OP No.2 on 15.3.2018 alongwith other products and one packet of kurkure having batch No.FA230517, manufactured on 23 May 2017 was only full of air, which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. It is averred that the OPs should be taught a lesson with heavy fine and legal cost for the Forum. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was duly given to the OPs. OP No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply while OP No.1 did not come present and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
4. In the written reply filed by OP No.2 raised preliminary objections that the complaint is wholly false, frivolous and vexatious and deserves to be dismissed; that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act and the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.
5. On merits, it is denied that the complainant has purchased ten packets from OP No.1 for any amount of consideration as there is no any valid bill of purchase and the complainant cannot be benefited by allowing to produce a voucher/kacha bill .There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments, the OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit,EXx.CA alongwith the document Ex.C1 and closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Ms. Namrata Saikia, authorized signatory of OP No.2 alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and has closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the complainant, the ld. counsel for OP No.2 and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The complainant has argued that the OP No.2 has involved in unfair trade practice. He argued that he has purchased 10 packets of kurkure of Rs.5/-each from Shubham Sweets out of which one packet was full of air and was having different batch number.So OP No.2 has played fraud with him  and heavy costs be imposed upon Op No.2.
10. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.2 has argued that it is not proved that kurkure packet was ever purchased by the complainant from Shubham Sweets as no invoice of Shubham Sweets has been placed on the file and only hand written bill is on the file and that from this bill it is not proved that the packets were purchased by the complainant as the name of the complainant is not written on this bill. No kurkure packet has been produced in the court which can show that it was an empty one. The ld. counsel further argued that from this complaint it is not clear that what relief the complainant is seeking in the prayer clause. So the complaint be dismissed with costs.
11. To prove this complaint, Rajinder Singh has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint, Ex.C1 is the receipt.
12. On the other hand, Ms Namrata Saikia has tendered her detailed affidavit, Ex.OPA on behalf of OP No.2 and the judgment passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-1,U.T.Chandigarh,Ex.OP1.
13. In the present complaint, complainant Rajinder Singh has placed on the file bill, Ex.C1 of Shubham Sweets, in which Rs.295/- has shown to have been paid but this bill is not an invoice of Shubham Sweets and it is not proved that it was issued by Shubham Sweets. Shubham Sweets has not appeared to rebut the case and was proceeded against exparte and the complainant has not produced the witness of Shubham Sweets to prove the bill. Moreover, it is also not proved that  complainant has purchased the articles vide Ex.C1 as the name of the complainant is not mentioned on the bill that he has purchased the articles. So the complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed on the basis of false and fabricated bill.
14. In the complaint he is also not a consumer qua OP No.2 as it is not proved that he has purchased packets of kurkure which were prepared by OP No.2.There is no allegation  or any material on the record to prove  that the complainant has purchased any goods for any consideration from OP No.2 and also there is no valid proof of the alleged purchase as already stated above and unless and until it is conclusively proved that the impugned packet was manufactured by OP No.2, no liability in law or on facts can be made attributable towards OP No.2.
15. In the present complaint, the complainant has not been able to establish on record that the product in question belongs to OP No.2 as it is not proved  and the complainant has not produced any packet of kurkure before this Commission. The OP No.2 has specifically pleaded that OP No.1 is not their authorized dealer and without establishing on record that the product in question directly linked to OP No.2, no action can be taken against them.
16. So it is clear that false and frivolous complaint has been filed by the complainant against OP No.2 without any proof or without any basis and without any proof of purchase the same from Shubham Sweets . Shubham Sweets is hand in glove with the complainant and they want to grab amount from OP No.2.
17. So it is clear that the complainant has filed this complaint on the basis of false and fabricated grounds as the invoice of Shubham Sweets for the purchase of kurkure packet is not placed on the file to show that it was empty one. So the complaint is without any merit and is dismissed accordingly with special costs of Rs.5000/- to be deposited by complainant with the legal aid fund of this Commission.   

ANNOUNCED

DATED:13.8.2021       

                                           Vinod Kumar Gulati                  Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                     Member                                         President