The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is Sri Kartik Chandra Panda, Prop. Gayatri Omfed Parlour & Confectionary, Sahid Park, Balasore, O.P No.2 is Balasore Omfed Plant, Representative by its Manager, Januganj Golei, Balasore and O.P No.3 is the Director, OMFED, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. 

                    2. Bereft of unnecessary details briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant had purchased 20 K.G Omfed paneer from O.P No.1 for his daughter’s marriage on payment of Rs.4,400/- (Rupees Four Thousand four hundred) only vide Bill No.193, dt.01.05.2015. But, after opening seal of said Omfed paneer packet, it was seen that all the paneer are in damaged condition and taste like sour. The Complainant returned all the paneer packets to O.P No.1, thereby the O.P No.1 after tasting the same assured to inform the matter to O.P No.2 and return back purchased amount to the Complainant and received all paneer packets from the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant on many occasions approached and demanded for refund of above said amount to the O.Ps, but lastly on 05.05.2015, the O.P No.1 refused to refund said amount and gave an hand note that O.P No.2 returned all packets to him, so the O.P No.1 is not able to refund the amount, which amounts to deficiency-in-service/ unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps, causes mental agony to the Complainant. The Complainant has prayed for refund of purchase price of paneer along with interest and compensation towards mental agony and litigation cost.

                    3. Written version filed by O.P No.1 through his Advocate, where he has denied on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. On the other hand, the O.P No.1 has submitted that the Complainant is a litigant and shrewd person and has filed this false case for his illegal gain and to  harass  this O.P and the O.P No.1 has neither sold any paneer to the Complainant on 01.05.2015 nor issued any bill to him  on receipt of amount of Rs.44,000/- (Rupees Forty Four Thousand) only and the O.P No.1 is not the dealer of the O.P No.2 and 3. Moreover, the O.P No.1 was/ is staying at Cuttack for his treatment as indoor patient at S.C.B Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack from 29.12.2014 to 07.01.2015 and thereafter, he is a regular outdoor patient till date for his treatment. The O.P No.1 was/ is not the dealer, but he was the agent of O.P No.2 and his agency has already been cancelled much prior to alleged cause of action of this case and he was absent at Balasore since 29.12.2014. The Complainant due to previous grudge has filed this false case by creating memo/ bill in the name of the O.P No.1.

                    4. Written version filed by the O.P No.2 through his Advocate, where he has denied on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. He has further submitted that the O.P No.1 is not the whole seller or agent or dealer under the O.P No.2 and 3 and that no supply of paneer was made to the O.P No.1. The Complainant never purchased paneer from O.P No.2 or from the counter of O.P No.2. The Complainant admitting purchase of paneer from O.P No.1 and he could have made an attempt to taste the item before purchase. When he has purchased the same not from O.P.No.2 or his agent, but from a stranger and while the Complainant has purchased paneer from a stranger, then the O.P No.2 or 3 has got no liability to make good the loss. On the other hand, there is no concrete proof  from the side of Complainant that delivery of goods was made by proper chalan in his name or in the name of O.P No.1, to whom the Complainant is claiming to be the agent of O.P No.2. The Complainant might have purchased paneer, but the same was not the product of O.P No.2. Since the Omfed is an apex co-operative body, no transaction could be made without any proper receipt, but the Complainant has not put forth any receipt/ delivery chalan in his name. The Complainant never made any objection before the O.P No.2 that the defective goods were supplied to him, as such the complaint having no basis is liable to be dismissed with costs.

                    5. Though sufficient opportunities are given to O.P No.3, but they neither have appeared nor filed their written version in this case within the statutory period. So, the O.P No.3 is set ex-parte.

                    6. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determinations of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?   

                    7. In order to substantiate his plea, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. The O.Ps did not file any document in their support. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that he has purchased the required 20 K.G Omfed paneer containing 500 gm. packet each amounting to Rs.4,400/- (Rupees Four Thousand four hundred) only from O.P No.1 vide Cash Memo No.193, dt.01.05.2015 for marriage of his daughter and when it was found sour in taste and in damaged condition, he refunded the same to O.P No.1, who received the same with an undertaking to return the amount by giving an endorsement on the cash memo regarding return of the money. But, subsequent on several requests, when the O.Ps failed to comply the same, the Complainant has filed this case in this Forum for refund of the purchase price of the Paneer along with compensation. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.P No.1 that he has neither sold any paneer to the Complainant nor issued any bill to him and further, he take a plea that he is not the Dealer of O.P No.3 and during the relevant period, he was under treatment at S.C.B Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack from 29.12.2014 to 07.01.2015, but no relevant documents has been filed in support of it. He by going one step ahead has admitted that he was the agent of O.P No.2 and his agency has already been cancelled much prior to alleged cause of action of this case, but no such materials has been filed in support of his plea. Furthermore, the O.P No.2 has denied that the alleged Paneer does not bear to Omfed Company and O.P No.2 is not the dealer, for which he is no way concerned with this case and he is no way liable for this. But, the fact remains that the O.P No.1 was his dealer and he has not furnished any material evidence about cancellation of his dealership. So, from the material available in the case record, no reasonable ground has been brought forward to disbelieve the Complainant as to why he tells false story against the O.Ps for a matter of Rs.4,400/- (Rupees Four Thousand four hundred) only and particularly, when the Paneer was required for the marriage of his daughter.

                    8. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and after hearing both the sides, this Forum come to the conclusion that the Complainant has purchased the alleged Paneer packets from the O.P No.1 by paying the required price and the goods remained as defective, for which he is a Consumer and it is the bounded duty of the O.Ps to refund the purchase amount paid by the Complainant and the O.Ps are jointly or severally liable for refund of the purchased price of the Paneer i.e. Rs.4,400/- (Rupees Four Thousand four hundred) only along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order and failure to comply the same will carry interest @ 10% per annum, which will meet the ends of justice in this case. Hence, Ordered:- 

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed on contest against the O.Ps No.1 and 2 and on ex-parte against O.P No.3 with cost. The O.Ps are jointly or severally liable for refund of the purchased price of the Paneer i.e. Rs.4,400/- (Rupees Four Thousand four hundred) only along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps as per Law, in case of failure by the O.Ps to comply the Order. 

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 20th day of September, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.