DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No: 195/14.12.2007 Decided on : 26.12.2008 Harbans Singh S/o Sh. Bakhtaur Singh, through his legal heir Sh.Nanak Singh S/o Sh.Harbans Singh @ Mithu Singh S/o Sh.Bakhtaur Singh, Village Ahmedpur, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Surya Resturant, Near I.T.I. Chowk, Budhlada, District Mansa through its Proprietor/Contractor Sh.Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh.Ram Gopal. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. Ranjeet Singh,Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.V.K.Goel, Advocate counsel for the opposite party. Before: Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed by Sh.Harbans Singh son of Sh.Bakhtaur Singh, resident of Village Ahmedpur, District Mansa, against Surya Restaurant, Near I.T.I. Chowk, Budhlada, District Mansa through its Proprietor/Contractor Sh.Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh.Ram Gopal, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act'), on the averments, which may, briefly be described as under: 2. That after marriage of Ms.Paramjit Kaur, daughter of the complainant, was settled, for 14.10.2007, the complainant, booked the restaurant, of the opposite party, run in the name and style of M/s Surya Contd........2 : 2 : Restaurant for her marriage ceremony. The opposite party had informed the complainant, that arrangement can be made for supply of quality food and entertainment of participants, in the marriage ceremony on payment of Rs.140/- per plate. The complainant placed order, for supply of food to 100 persons on account of which, the opposite party issued bill, in the sum of Rs.14,730/-. As such, complainant was consumer, under the opposite party, who supplied food, as per promise to the participants in the marriage of the daughter of the complainant, but, food supplied was stale, poisonous and unfit for human consumption, because, the opposite party had used substandard material, for preparation thereof. After taking the food, all the participants in the marriage ceremony, of the daughter of the complainant, fell sick during the night, intervening 14th/15th October. They also suffered pain in their stomach, started vomiting and suffered fever. The victims secured treatment, from the village, next day, but as their condition did not improve, as such, they were admitted in the Civil Hospitals, at Budhlada and Mansa, from 15.10.2007 and were discharged on 16.10.2007. The names of the persons who fell victim of the food, supplied by the opposite party, in the marriage ceremony, have also been given, in detail in para No.2 of the complaint. The information about the plight of participants in the marriage spread in the area and a news article was also published in the newspaper. The complainant has also been defamed in the eyes of the general public and he had to incur a lot of expenditure and underwent mental and physical harassment. The participants had also suffered physically and mentally and their valuable time and money was wasted, due to sickness, as such, the complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, from the opposite party. The complainant, approached the opposite party for making payment of amount of compensation and for refund of money paid by him, the opposite party, but he refused to oblige. Hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, opposite party filed written version, Contd........3 : 3 : resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that complainant has no locus standi and cause of action, to file the complaint; that a false version, has been concocted, by the complainant and, has been placed before this Forum, as such, he is not liable to claim any amount from the opposite party, on account of compensation and his complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, it is admitted that on 14.10.2007, restaurant of the opposite party was booked by the complainant and demand, was placed for supply of food to about 100 persons. The said order was received, by the opposite party as proprietor of M/s Royal Restaurant, but function, was held in the building of M/s Surya Restaurant, which has been taken by Sh.Mukesh Kumar proprietor of M/s Royal Restaurant, on rent as business, run by M/s Surya Restaurant stands closed. It is submitted that Mukesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Surya Restaurant, has no concern with M/s Royal Restaurant. It is contended that out of settled amount of Rs.14,730/-, the complainant, had not paid a sum of Rs.4730/- and on raising of demand, by Mukesh Kumar, he raised dispute and at the instance of one Manjit Singh @ Jeeti, a Journalist of Budhlada, he has concocted false version and placed the same before this Forum, to put pressure upon the opposite party, not to press for the remaining payment. It is submitted that in fact quality food was supplied in the marriage ceremony of the daughter of the complainant in M/s Surya Restaurant,, because there was another party in the building of M/s Royal Restaurant and the food was prepared for both the functions on the same day together. It is contended that the complainant purchased cold drinks, dry fruits and non-veg etc. from the market at his own and all the participants in the marriage made no complaint before their departure, to their homes, but, when Mukesh Kumar, raised demand of balance amount, Manjit Singh @ Jeeti, Journalist of Budhlada, started demonstrating, his status saying that he deserves concession, because of profession pursued by him and on refusal on the part of Mukesh Kumar, to succumb to his Contd........4 : 4 : pressure, he, with the intent to black mail him, connived with the complainant, to file the instant complaint, which is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs and Sh.Mukesh Kumar reserves his right to initiate criminal action against the complainant due to adverse publicity attracted by him. Rest of the allegations, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 4. On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, Sh.Nanak Singh son of the complainant, who expired during the pendency of the complaint, tendered his affidavit Ext.C-1 and affidavit of Sh.Jagjivan Ram Goyal, as Ext.C-2. Learned counsel for the deceased complainant has also tendered in evidence, a series of documents, including cash memo and details of bill, in the marriage, of the daughter of the complainant, Ext.C-3 and C-4, issued, by the opposite party and photocopies of Bed Head Tickets of various victims Exts.C-5 to C-12, before closure of the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel, for the opposite party, tendered in evidence affidavits of Sh.Ramesh Kumar, Manager of M/s Royal Restaurant as Ext.OP-1, Sh.Jai Ram, Cook, employed in the same restaurant as Ext.OP-2, Sh.Mukesh Kumar, Proprietor as Ext.OP-3, Sh.Naresh Kumar, Waiter as Ext.OP-4 and affidavit of Sh.Sita Ram, son of Sh.Amar Nath, Ext.OP-5, at whose instance second function was held, in the restaurant of Sh.Mukesh Kumar. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has also tendered in evidence, copies of documents Ext.OP-6, Report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh Ext.OP-7, and closed entire evidence. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the opposite party, Sh.V.K.Goel, Advocate, has submitted that several intricate questions of law and facts are involved in this case which can be proved by the parties by leading elaborate evidence, as such, the controversy, cannot be adjudicated by this Forum, in summary manner. Learned counsel argued, that in view of the nature of dispute involved, in the case in hand, parties Contd........5 : 5 : be left to approach the civil Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant, Sh. Ranjeet Singh, Advocate, has argued that oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, is sufficient for disposal of the controversy in dispute by this Forum, in summary manner, as such, the complainant is entitled to claim relief on the basis of facts, borne on record. 7. We find merit, in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party. As per the case of the complainant, stale and poisonous food was supplied, to all the participants in the marriage of the daughter, of the complainant, on 14.10.2007, but as per the documentary evidence, copies of bed head tickets tendered in evidence by him, only 8 persons were admitted, in the Civil Hospitals at Budhlada and Mansa on 15.10.2007, although, as per his version, all the 100 participants, had fallen sick, after consuming the food supplied, by the opposite party. The plea of the complainant that prior to their admission in the hospital, these participants were treated by private medical practitioner, is not supported by any evidence. The complainant has produced admission record of 8 persons, whereas his case is that all the participants, who consumed food in the restaurant of the opposite party fell sick. As per the Bed Head Tickets Ext.C-5 to C-12, all the persons admitted in the above said hospitals were discharged, on 16.10.2008. The complainant has not examined any doctor who attended, the patients in the hospital and as per the remarks given on the Bed Head Tickets, all the patients were discharged, from the hospital at their own request. The opposite party has tendered in evidence, copy of report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh Ext.OP-7 given after taking of samples of stock, out of which food was prepared and supplied to the participants, in the marriage ceremony. The Assistant Director(Toxicology) Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh, has opined after conducting chemical analysis of those samples that, No common chemical poison, has been Contd........6 : 6 : detected therein, whereas the case of the complainant is that, it is a case of Food Poisoning. In the copy of Daily Diary Report No.25, registered at Police Station, Budhlada, it is stated that case reported to the police, pertained to suspected food poisoning, as the doctors, who attended the participants, in the hospital, has opined that no patient suffered from vomiting or loose motion during the period of their admission. The report Ext.OP-7, has been given, by Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh, on the basis of request made by the police through Head Constable Karnail Singh. The plea of the opposite party is that cold drinks, dry fruits, non vegetarian food articles consumed by the participants, in the marriage ceremony were arranged by the deceased complainant from outside, at his own. Therefore, it cannot be concluded on the basis of the evidence adduced, on record that participants, in the marriage, had suffered, because of consumption of food supplied, by the restaurant, of the opposite party or because of consumption of food articles arranged from own sources by the complainant himself. Since, as per the own case of the complainant, participants fell sick during night, therefore, consumption of any other food by them in the evening, cannot be ruled out and it cannot be concluded, in the absence of any positive evidence, that they fell sick because of some other food article consumed by them after reaching their homes. The pulse rate and report of TLC and DLC tests have been reported in the Bed Head Ticket, after examination, as normal. 8. As per the plea of the opposite party, he is running M/s Royal Restaurant, whereas complaint, has been filed, by the complainant, against M/s Surya Restaurant, building of which, as per case of the opposite party, has been taken, on rent, by him. In case mis-description of opposite party is proved and it is established that Sh.Mukesh Kumar, has no concern with Surya Restaurant, then even, no effective relief can be passed. 9. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that several intricate questions of law and facts are involved which , can be decided in Contd........7 : 7 : just and proper manner by the Civil Court and not in the summary manner by this Forum. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant, Sh.Ranjit Singh, Advocate, has submitted, that participants who suffered after consuming food, in the marriage ceremony of the daughter of the complainant, in the restaurant run, by the opposite party, had been treated by different medical institutions, including Civil Hospital, as such, the medical documents, cannot be said to have been forged and fabricated by them. Learned counsel has further submitted, that opposite party has not alleged any previous hostile animus, towards the complainant on account of which he might, have been prompted to file false complaint against him and no note has been given, in the cash memo and list of articles of food to be supplied, that any articles has to be arranged by the complainant from his own source for consumption of participants in the marriage of his daughter. Learned counsel has further argued that no sample has been taken of any such article or got compared from hand writer expert either by the police or by the opposite party, as such, no ground is made out for non-suiting the complainant. 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party, Sh.V.K.Goel, Advocate, has submitted that as per the remarks given on the Bed Head Tickets, patients were discharged next day, at their own request in good condition, and none of them have shown any symptom of disease, in the course of their admission, in the hospital. Learned counsel has also argued that as per averments, made in the written version, filed by the opposite party, food in his restaurant was prepared and supplied, to the participants, in the marriage of the daughter of the deceased complainant alongwith for supply to the participants in the shagan ceremony of the daughter of Sh.Sita Ram son of Sh.Amar Nath, but none of those participants in latter function had suffered from food poisoning. Learned counsel, has argued that, as per remarks given in the Bed Head Contd........8 : 8 : Tickets, patients have left, the hospital, at their own and no medical practitioner has been examined, by the complainant, who treated them, in the hospital, or otherwise and they did not bear the signatures, of the doctors, who attended them, whereas pulse rate and reports of TLC & DLC have been reported to be 'normal'. Learned counsel has argued that complainant has failed to establish the allegations, as such, there is substance in the plea of the opposite party that false version has been concocted by the complainant with the connivance of a witness, and a journalist who had been pressurising and demanding concession of amount due, towards the complainant, in the sum of Rs.4730/-, demonstrating his status, after his ego, was hurt due, to refusal, by the proprietor, of M/s Royal Restaurant, to concede, with his demand, as such, complaint is otherwise liable to be dismissed on merits. 12. In view of the finding reported by this Forum about the maintainability of the food, we consider it prudent, not to make any observation, regarding merit of the controversy and leave the matter to be adjudicated, by the Civil Court, if approached by the complainant. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint and leave the complainant, to approach the Civil Court, if he so desires or advised. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. 14. The copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules, on the subject, and file be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 26.12.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
