Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/683/2014

Shiv Murti Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Srini Food Park Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Jasbir Singh Adv.

23 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

=========

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/683/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	16/10/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	23/04/2015

 

 

 

 

 

1.   Shiv Murti Yadav, Advocate S/o Sh. Ram Dulare Yadav, Office at SCO No. 38-39, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

 

2.   Raj Jacob Raj Jacob S/o Sh. Ram Kishan, R/o H.No. 1067, Sector 24-B, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainants

Vs.

 

1.     Srini Food Park Pvt. Limited, SY No.11-24/2 Mogili Village Bangarupalem Mandal Chitloor District 517416 Andhra Pradesh. (Real Juice Manufacturer).

 

2.     Dabur India Limited, Registered Office 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi – 11002.

 

3.     Sardar Confectionery Store, SCO 176, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

 

……Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

 

Present:      None for Complainants.

Sh. G.D. Goyal, Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 (OPs No.1 & 2 ex-parte)

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP No.3.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, on 29.4.2014, during Complainants visit to their friend, they were served Real Fruit Power Guava juice, by him, from a sealed Tetra Pack purchased from Opposite Party No.3. It has been alleged that the taste of the juice was not good. The Complainants noticed that there was a thick fungal growth, in the juice. They accordingly approached the Food Safety Cell, Sector 16, Chandigarh to analyze/test the sample of the juice (Annexure C-1). It has been averred that the Food Safety Cell sent the sample to the Food Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh, who vide his report dated 27.5.2014 (Annexure C-2) opined that the sample contained fungus and was unsafe. It has been further averred that the said Tetra Pack (Batch No.SF4006) was manufactured & packed on 16.1.2014 and was best for consumption before 6 months from packing date. The Complainants have personally approached the Opposite Parties along with the report of the laboratory, but they did not take any action. Hence, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 initially appeared through Sh. G.D. Goyal, Advocate, Advocate, but subsequently none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and therefore vide order dated 02.02.2015, they were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.

 

4.     Opposite Party No.3 in its reply, while disputing the sale of the juice pack, has pleaded that the Complainants have not purchased the juice pack. The said fruit juice was purchased by their friend, who has not filed the present Complaint. It has been further pleaded that the exact date of purchase of the fruit juice has not been mentioned. The Complainants have also not produced the bill for the purchase for the said fruit juice. It has been asserted that the report was based on the opened fruit juice pack, on which it is categorically mentioned that the same be consumed within 5 days of opening. The juice pack in question might have been kept opened for a number of days and thus it got infected with fungus. The report has not been taken from a sealed fruit pack. The Food Analyst failed to collect the sample of the same batch from the market or from the answering Opposite Party to atleast come to the conclusion that the whole of the batch is unsafe. It has been asserted that the answering Opposite Party has not received any Complaint with regard to any of the fruit juice of the same batch. Further, the fruit juice was tested on 5.5.2014 as per the report Annexure C-2; whereas the same should have been immediately tested on 29.4.2014. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties and have perused the record. 

 

7.     The first question that falls for consideration is as to whether the Complainants are ‘consumers’ of Opposite Party No.3 or not? The answer to this question is in negative, as the Complainants have failed to produce any bill or the document to prove that the Tetra Pack of the Juice in question was purchased from Opposite Party No.3. Even affidavit of the Complainants’ friend who actually purchased the same has not been filed. Since the disputed good is not proved to have been purchased from Opposite Party No.3, therefore, it cannot be held liable for unfair trade practice or deficiency in providing any service to the Complainants, as alleged by them. 

 

8.     Further, so far as the question of authenticity of document C-2 (report of Food Analyst, Haryana) is concerned, the same is for a sealed Tetra Pack where it is clearly mentioned that “a sample is of QTS Fruit Beverage in a sealed and puffed tetra pack having fungal growth”, but on contrary in the complaint there is mention of opening the seal of the Tetra Pack by the complainants. The Complainants have failed to connect the consumed product with the sample examined by Food Analyst vide report Annexure C-2. In these circumstances, the complaint lacks merit. Therefore, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.     

 

9.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

23^rd April, 2015                         

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER