Complaint filed on: 20-07-2016                                                      Disposed on: 31-05-2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101

CC.No.101/2016

DATED THIS THE 31^st DAY OF MAY 2017

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT

SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -

                                                Renukaprasad,

                                                S/o. Eshwarappa,

                                                Aged about 40 years,

                                                R/at N.Rampura village,

                                                Nittur Hobli, Gubbi taluk,

                                                Tumakuru district

(By advocate Sri.Srinivasa Murthy.N.H.)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. The Manager,

M/s.Britania Industries Ltd,

5/1A, Hunger Ford Street,

(A-Wadia Enterprises)

2. The Manager,

M/s. Paramount Nutritions India Pvt. Ltd. No.22A and 22B, Bidadi Industrial Area, Ramanagara taluk

Bengaluru Rural District

3. N.S.Ramesh S/o. Late Sathyanarayana Shetty,

Proprietor of Sapthagiri Stores (SGS), Resident of old BH Road,

Nittur Hobli, Gubbi taluk, Tumakuru district

(OP No.1 & 2- By advocate Sri.G.H.Sreenivasa)

(OP.No.3-By advocate Sri.T.G.Mahesh)

ORDER

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed by this complainant against the OP No.1 to 3, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OPs to pay the bill amount of Rs.30/- with interest and to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000=00 along with interest and to pay cost and other incidental charges of Rs.10,000=00 as deemed fit, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.

          The complainant submitted that, the OP No.1 and 2 are the manufacturer of the nutrition food in the name and style of GOOD DAY biscuits and having the business under the said name all over the country and also have many distribution centers everywhere. The 2^nd OP is the distributor for Karnataka state and the 3^rd OP is the retail seller. The complainant is one of the regular customers of the 3^rd OP.  The complainant always used to purchase things and other nutrition foods i.e. biscuits for his and for the usage of his family members.

          The complainant further submitted that, on 1-4-2016 the complainant had purchased three biscuits packs from the 3^rd OP while purchasing the same; the complainant was enquired about the weight of the said biscuits pack each and the 3^rd OP told the complainant that each pack weighted 75 grams. As such the complainant was purchased the same and paid an amount of Rs.30=00 vide bill no.6165.

          The complainant further submitted that, the complainant weighted the same in the 3^rd OP shop for his satisfaction and then he got surprised that, each biscuit pack weighted 60 grams instead of 75 grams and the same was packed on 6-3-2016, lot no.A0316Do, machine code 109A and the same has been confirmed by the 3^rd OP.

          The complainant further submitted that, the act done by the OPs and their people come under the deficiency of service to the complainant. The complainant got issued legal notice to the OP dated 1-6-2016 and the said notice was duly served on the OPs. Even after service of the notice, the OPs have not been chosen to settle their negligence caused by the OPs. The act of the OPs has caused for deficiency of service to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is suffering from mental shock and agony as well as he is facing lot of troubles for his daily usage of the said biscuit packet. Hence the complainant has come up with the present complaint. 

3. In response to the notice issued by this forum, the OP No.1 to 3 have appeared through their counsel and filed separate objections. The 2^nd OP has filed a memo and adopted the version of the 1^st OP.

4. In the objection, the 1^st OP denies all the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint and there is no deficiency of service and as such it is liable to be dismissed in limine.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the 2^nd OP is its contract manufacturer who manufactures product as per the specification provided. They have set up food safety controls to ensure every high standard of hygiene and cleanliness and the processes are duly certified for quality and the food safety management system always aim to provide completely safe quality products to their consumers.   There are a lot of spurious/look alike products available in the market which do not conform to the statutory standards and the product in question may be one of such product since they have not been able to analyze the product available at their end. 

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the complainant has never produced the packets in question for their examination to ascertain the actual weight of the same. Except the assertion of the complainant about short weight of the packets in question, no other independent cogent material is produced to establish the claim. Hence on this score the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, they have installed and follow stringent quality control measures which help them in eliminating any type of defect or underweight product. They have a daily quality indexing system, whereby a final quality evaluation of every batch of biscuit produced is performed and that batch of biscuit is released for market consumption only after full satisfaction of meeting the specific standards. The OP no.1 and 2 have not received any similar complaints of underweight packages from the same batch of production. Hence, the complainant is put to strict proof of the assertion to the packages being under weight. They have checked the counter samples retained from the same batch and have not found any underweight package.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the packets being purchased from the 3^rd OP is denied. The assertion of the complainant that, the packets in question were short weight is emphatically denied. There is no deficiency of service by the OPs in as much as the short weight is not clearly demonstrated by the complainant and the alleged packs were never produced before the OPs to examine and ascertain the actual weight. The 1^st OP submitted that, no loss is suffered by the complainant and damages claimed is not commensurate with the cost incurred by the complainant in purchasing the alleged defective packets. The OPs are not liable to pay any damages since no loss or damage suffered by the complainant. There is no deficiency of service and no loss or damages have been suffered by the complainant. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost, in the interest of justice and equity.

5. In the version, the 3^rd OP has submitted that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the complaint is false and baseless. The averments made in the complaint are all hereby denied as false and the same is not within the knowledge of the 3^rd OP. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary party of 3^rd OP, eventhough the 3^rd OP is not necessary for proceedings. On this score only, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the 3^rd OP. The cause of action set by the complainant is created one hut to file the present complaint. The averments made in the complaint are all hereby denied line by line. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.   

6.  In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version.   The complainant has produced documents, which were marked as Ex-C1 to C8. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents and posted the case for order.

6. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.

1. Whether there was unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as alleged by the complainant?
2. What Order?  

7. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1: In the affirmative

          Point no.2: As per the final order below.

REASONS

          8. On perusal of the pleadings, affidavit evidence, objection of the OPs and documents produced by the complainant, it is an admitted fact that, the complainant had purchased three biscuit packs from the 3^rd OP for a sum of Rs.30=00 vide bill No.6165 dated 1-4-2016.

          9. The main contention of the complainant is that, one of the biscuit pack which was purchased from the 3^rd OP was packed on 6-3-2016, Lot No.A0316D0 and Machine Code 109A and it was weighted 60 grams instead of 75 grams and the same has been confirmed by the 3^rd OP and in this regard, the 3^rd OP has given letter to the complainant. To substantiate the above said facts, the complainant has produced on receipt/Ex-C1 issued by the 3^rd OP dated 1-4-2017 receipt no.6165 and one letter issued by the 3^rd OP/Ex-C2 and legal notice/Ex-3.

          10. Per-contra, the 1^st OP submitted that, they have set-up food safety controls to ensure very high standards of hygiene and cleanliness and the processes are duly certified for quality and good safety management system. Further the 1^st OP submitted that, the complainant has not produced the packets in question for their examination to ascertain the actual weight and to examine whether the disputed biscuit pack manufactured by the OP No.1 and 2.

          11. Admittedly, the complainant has produced disputed biscuits pack for kind perusal of this forum. This forum has sent the above said biscuits pack to the Weight and Measure Department, Tumakuru for ascertain the weight of the disputed biscuit pack. In turn, the Weight and Measure Department, Tumakuru has given letter to this forum stating that, the said disputed biscuit packet is weighed 62.13 grams only.

          12. Further, the disputed biscuit pack is before the forum and the OPs have not filed any application for seeking permission for examination of the above said disputed biscuit pack. The Weight and Measure Department had inspected the disputed biscuit pack and came to a conclusion that, the weight of the biscuit pack is only 62.13 grams. The Forum will have to accept the finding given by the Weight and Measure Department. Hence, in view of the above discussion, we come to conclusion that, the disputed biscuit pack was weighed 62.13 grams instead of 75 grams. Hence, there is unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. In so far as the damage of Rs.1,00,000=00 claimed by the complainant is whole disproportionate. Further the complainant has not shown any reason to award damage of Rs.1,00,000=00, therefore his claim seeking damages of Rs.1,00,000=00 is rejected. Of-course OP is liable to be penalized for such unfair trade practice. Therefore it is just and proper to direct the OP no.1 and 2 to pay price of the disputed biscuit pack of Rs.10=00. Further, the OP no.1 and 2 to pay litigation cost of Rs.3,000=00 and compensation of Rs.2,000=00 to the complainant. The complaint filed against the 3^rd OP is hereby dismissed. Accordingly we answer this point in the affirmation. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part.

The OP No.1 and 2 are directed to pay price of the disputed biscuits pack of Rs.10=00 along with litigation cost of Rs.3,000=00 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

The OP No.1 and 2 are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000=00 to the complainant.

This order is to be complied by the OP No.1 and 2 within 30 days from the date of this order.

The Complainant is directed to hand over the disputed biscuit pack to the Opposite Parties after receipt of said amount from the Opposite Parties.

The complaint filed against the 3^rd OP is hereby dismissed. No cost.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 31^st day of May 2017)

LADY MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT