Haryana

Ambala

CC/99/2018

Gourav Momia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tasty Treat Future Consumer Pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

03 May 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                                    Complaint case no.        :  99 of 2018

                                                                    Date of Institution         :  14.03.2018

                                                                    Date of decision   :  03.05.2019

Gourav Momia S/o Sh. Amrit Lal R/o# 57, Sector-4, Huda Naraingarh-134203, District Ambala (Haryana)

……. Complainant.

1. Tasty Treat, Furture Consumer Private Limited, Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar, Jageshwari(East), Mumbai-400060, Maharashtra, India
2. EasyDay Naraingarh, Ward No.01, Near New Bus Stand, Naraingarh -134203, Haryana India.

                                                              ….…. Opposite parties.

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu,  President.

Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member

                             Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

Present:       Sh. Ankur Passi, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Puneet Sirpaul, Advocate,  counsel for OPs.

 

Order:         Smt, Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as ‘Ops’). 

Brief facts of the present complaint are that father of complainant Sh. Amrit Lal vide bill dated 28.11.2017 purchased one packet  of 200grm of Tasty Treat butter toast (RUSK) having batch no. A111017TB and manufacturing date 11.10.2017, for Rs.32/- from Easyday Naraingarh i.e. OP No.2. After consuming half of the rusk packet, the complainant found a thick thread from one butter toast(rusk). He sent a complaint to the  customer service of OP No.1 on 06.12.2017 through email at 05:44pm. Service team of the OP No.1 apologized. The OP No.1 by manufacturing and the OP No.2 by selling such like unhealthy products in the open market are playing with the health of the public at large. By selling contaminated packet of rusk, the OPs have committed deficiency in service and thus they be directed to pay Rs. 2lacs as compensation for causing agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filled written version, raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous and there is no deficiency in service on their part. On merits, it is stated that the complainant has failed to prove that the thick thread found in the rusk was manufactured and sold by the OPs. Complainant has wrongly alleged that the OPs are selling unhealthy products to the general public. All other averments of the complainant were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, evidence of the OPs was closed by court order dated 14.11.2018.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

5.                 The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the father of the complainant vide invoice dated 28.11.2017 had purchased one packet of tasty treat butter toast (rusk) from the OP No.2 for Rs.32/-. Since the said packet was purchased by the father of the complainant for himself and for consumption for his family members. The complainant being his son has taken out one rusk from the said packet to eat but he found a big thread in the said rusk. He lodged a complaint with OP No.1. The customer team of the OP No.1 apologized for the same. By selling a unhealthy product, the OPs have committed in deficiency in service thus they be directed to compensate the complainant.

On the contrary,  the learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the alleged packet of tasty butter toast(rusk) was purchased by the father of the complainant. Whereas the present complaint has been filed by the complainant as such same is not maintainable. He further argued that the complainant has failed to prove that the thick thread found in the rusk was manufactured and sold by the OPs. It is prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed with heavy cost.

6.                From the perusal of the invoice dated 28.11.2017, Annexure C-7, it is evident that Sh. Amrit Lal purchased  a packet of tasty treat butter toast(rusk) alongwith some others items from OP no.1. Complainant has suffered a statement that the packet of rusk purchased by his father was consumed by him being a family member and he is beneficiary. In Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the CP Act, it is envisaged that when a person use the goods with the approval of the person who has purchased the said goods for some consideration is said to be a consumer. Since in the present case the complainant while consuming a rusk purchased by his father has found thick thread in it. Therefore, he is a consumer qua the OPs and the complaint filed by him is maintainable before this Forum. Thus the objection raised by the  learned counsel for the OPs that the complainant is not a consumer and complaint filed by him is not tenable, hence rejected. On opening of duly packed box containing impugned packet of tasty treat butter toast(rusk), which was kept in the custody of the Assistant of this Forum, in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties in the open Court, it was found that there was a thick thread in one of the toast of the said packet. The Ops have not produced any cogent evidence to establish that the said packet was not manufactured by OP No.1 and is spurious one. By selling a unhealthy, unhygienic and unsafe eating product, the OPs have committed in deficiency in service, they are thus liable to compensate the complainant. Now, coming to the question, what should be the quantum of compensation. The complainant has sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 2lacs. The question  regarding awarding of compensation  has already been settled by the Superior  Courts/For a in catena of judgments. In the case of Chief Administrator, Huda & Anr. Vs. Shakuntla Devi decided on 08.12.2016(SC),  the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that

“The sine qua non for entitlement of compensation is proof of loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of Opposite Party. Once the said condition are satisfied, the consumer forum would have to decide the quantum of the compensation to which the consumer is entitled. There cannot be any dispute that the computation of compensation has to be fair, reasonable commensurate to the loss or injury. There if a duty cast on the consumer Forum to take into account all relevant factor of arriving at compensation to be paid”.  

7.                It is not the case of the complainant that someone got ill after consuming any rusk from the said packet. In view of the totally of the facts and the law laid down by the Superior Courts/For a, we hereby allow the present complaint and OPs are directed jointly and severally to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant within the period of 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 8%per annum thereafter. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on : 03.05.2019 

 

 

 

                    (Vinod Kumar Sharma)           (Ruby Sharma)      (Neena Sandhu)

                    Member                  Member                       President