IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PURI
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.304/2015
Present: Sri D.Moharana, President I/c
Miss S.K.Rath,Member(W)
Sri Sarat Chandra Mohanty S/o.Late Bauribandhu Mohanty,
At – Hadagadia Sahi, Jamuna Lane,
At/PO-Puri. ...Complainant
Vrs.
1- The Managing Director,
( A Hench India Pvt. Ltd.),
At- 7th Floor, D Siva Sagar ,Worly, Mumbai-400018.
2-=Swapu Care,
At- Swadhin Enclave, VIP Road,Dist- Puri-752001.. ...Opp.Parties
For the Complainant- Sri Trilochan Panigrahi , Advocate & Associates.
For the Opposite Party No. 1- Sri Sumit Lal , Advocate & Associates.
For the Opposite Party No.2- Ms. Rachita Dash, Advocate & Associates.
DATE OF FILING- 17.10.2015
DATE OF DISPOSAL-20.03.2020
O R D E R
Sri D. Moharana,President Incharge
The case of the complainant in a nut shell is that he purchased a Glucon-D packet of 100 gram weight on payment of Rs.30/- on 1.10.2015 from the shop of O.P No.2 and obtained bill thereof . It is further alleged by the complainant that he had purchased the said commodity in order to provide energy to his grandson viz. Arush and on it's taking doze one after another on a glass of water, he suspected the less weight of the said glucon-D packet. Then he rushed to another shop and measured it and came to know that the weight of the Glucon-D packet purchased by him from O.P No.2 was having only 51 grams instead of 100 grams. Subsequently, he purchased another glucon-D purchased of 100 gram and weighted it and found the same packet carried 114 grams. He approached the O.P No.2 for return of the packet who denied to take it back . Thus, he thought that he has been deceived by the Opposite Parties in selling less quantity in a packet of edible commodity and by the way he sustained mental agony for the unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps. Hence, this cse with a prayer for replacing the glucon-D packet with payment of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him due to deficiency in service of the O.Ps.
2- The Opposite Parties filed their written version separately refuting all the allegation of the complainant. It is contended by the O.P No.1 that their product is a well established brand in food products and engaged in manufacturing of product that providing instant energy in the form of glucose. It is also stated that the complainant has failed to avail the first remedy available to him by not contacting their Consumer Cell and hurriedly approached the Forum for his redressal. It is also stated that the complainant has not produced the alleged packet of Glucon D before the Forum for inspection for which it can not be ascertained that the alleged product of belonging to the product of O.P No.1. It is also stated that details like lot no, manufacturing date, etc. has not been disclosed by the complainant to ascertain the reason of complaint of the complainant. It is ,thus, denied that there can not be any shortage of weight in its product. It is also contended that as per assertions of the complainant, the packet had already been opened and mixed a certain dozes of its contents in water which was then given to his grandson. Therefore, after opening of the pack, the complainant is wrong and grossly unfair on his part to make allegations of the product pack containing less quantity. Thus, it is contended that the allegation of short weight of the Glucon-D is false , fabricated and concocted and ,moreover, no specific measuring instrument has been used to measure the net weight of the partially opened & used product to arrive at the conclusion that the specified weight was faulty having less weight, hence, deserved to be dismissed with cost.
The Opp.Party No.2 in its written version has stated that the case is not maintainable against him as he is not the manufacturer of the alleged Glucon-D. It is also denied tht the complainant has personally purchased any Glucon-D packet from Swapu Care as he is neither the guardian of the child nor have been appointed as guardian by any court of law. It is also denied that the complainant has never purchased the alleged Glucon -D to the complainant. As a matter of fact, he is the proprietor of medicine shop named and style as Swapu Care and the complainant has not purchased the Glucon-D packet from his shop. Hence, the present case is not maintainable against him and prayed for dismissal of the case.
3- We have gone through the case in detail, perused the case record and documents filed therein and heard the learned counsels appearing for both the parties at length. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the Glucon-D packet as purchased from O.P No.2 was found shortage of weight as declared in the packet by O.P No.1. The O. P NO.1 being the manufacturer and the O.P No.2 is its retailer to sell the product of O.P No.1 are both jointly and severally liable to mitigate the loss and mental agony sustained by him. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.Ps vehemently objected to the contentions of the complainant's advocate and submitted that every packet of Glucon-D contained its lot number and manufacturing dates to ascertain its product or not. The complainant has not mentioned the above numbers for which it can not be said that the packet was manufactured by O.P No.1. The learned counsel for the complainant also gave emphasis on the production of the alleged packet duly sealed before the Forum for perusal and the same has been preserved that can be opened for analysis. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.Ps argued that while preserving, nothing has been mentioned regarding lot number or date of manufacturer, etc. for which it can be purely assumed that it is malpractices by the complainant.
Moreover, the learned counsel for the complainant reiterates for production of the alleged packet as already in the seal cover which was kept in the Forum. Accordingly, the Bench Clerk produces the packet before the Forum for perusal. While perusing the packet, we find that the packet was properly sealed but nothing is mentioned as to in ;which date the packet was sealed and in whose presence the seal of the packet was made and also no signature of the President/Members is found out on the packet. Therefore, the learned counsel for the O.P raised the objection and stated that due to lack of all such instances creates doubt upon the packet and never be accepted.
4- To substantiate the claim of the complainant, we carefully perused the entire order sheets of the case and do not file any order regarding seal of the alleged packet. Moreover, this is the dispute regarding less weight than the declared weight of the packaged commodity. Nothing on record regarding sending of the alleged packet to the appropriate laboratory/approved organization to weigh the actual weight of the alleged product. In absence of sufficient evidence regarding less weight of the alleged product, we are not in a position to justify the case of the complainant judiciously. Hence, the instant case stands dismissed due to want of evidence.
O R D E R
The of the complainant is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps due to want of evidence. Parties are to bear their own cost.
Dictated & corrected by me on this day of March,2020
Sd/-S.K.Rath Sd/-D.Moharana
I AGREE(MEMBER) PRESIDENT I/C
