BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
C.C NO-91 of 2016
Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Smita Tripathy,Member (W).
Sabir Hussain, S/O- Sayad Hussain,
Aged About 42 years, R/O-Motijharan,
Po- Dhankauda, Ps- Dhanupali,
Tah/Dist-Sambalpur …..Complainant
Vrs.
- The Proprietor, Padma Medical Store,
At- Sakhipara Road. Sambalpur Road,
Sambalpur, P.S- Dhanupali, P.O/Dist- Sambalpur
- The Proprietor, Shiva Medicals (stokiest),
At- Fatak, PO-Budharaja, Po/Tah/Dist- Sambalpur
-
- Managing Director, Raptakos Brett & co. Ltd.,
Registered office At Dr. Annie Besant Road,
Worli, Mumbai-400030…………………..O.Ps
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant:- Sri S.S.Sahu, Advocate & Associates.
- For the O.P-1 :- Sri. M.K.Sahoo, Advocate & Associates.
- For the O.P-2 :- Sri P.K.Mishra, Advocate & Associates.
- For the O.P-3 :- Sri A.N.Mishra, Advocate & Associates.
DATE OF HEARING : 17.02.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 22.03.2021
SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA, PRESIDENT:- Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant on dtd. 03.10.2016 has purchased a baby food “LACTODEX” of 1 Kg which available in sealed tin box for his two months old baby from the O.P-1 on payment of Rs.700/-. The O.P-1 issued a money receipt vide no-4586 to the Complainant against the purchase. On dtd.05.10.2016, the wife of the Complainant opened the sealed tin box to fed her baby, prepared the food and fed the baby but the baby was reluctant to eat. After some hours on that day, again the baby was fed with the same baby food but this time the baby started vomiting and its condition became detoriate. The Complainant was informed of the matter from his wife and found that the powder smelled badly and unfit for consumption. On the next day the Complainant reached to the O.P-1with the Tin Box (Lactodex), narrated the matter and requested to replace the same. The O.P-1 kept the tin box in his store and asked to the Complainant that he will make consultation with the stockist, so he may come after 15 days. On dtd.21.10.2016 the Complainant again reached to the O.P-1 but he said that he could not discuss with the Stockist so he may take the Tin Box and meet the O.P-2 directly and narrate the matter. The O.P-1 did not take any steps towards the replacement of the defective and spurious baby food in spite of several requests and the said box is lying with the Complainant which he undertake to produce before the Commission as and when directed. The Complainant complains of harassment, mental pain and risk in life which results to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.Ps and prayed for certain relief.
According to the O.P-1 as the product was a sealed one, he is not liable for any damage or adulteration. The Complainant is incidentally came to his shop dtd.03.10.2016 and purchased a Lactodex from his shop. Again he added that the Complainant came to him on 02.11.2016 just after 30 days of the said purchase and the O.P-1 told him the name of the stockist from where he get supply of the items. As per the O.P-1, in a single batch of product more than thousands numbers of baby food are being distributed and sold but till yet no complaint from any corner throughout Odisha has been received by him except this case. Hence the O.P-1 or the other O.Ps has not done anything for which they are liable to compensate the complainant.
According to the O.P-2,the Complainant was not supplied of any money receipt or any details of the product purchased from the O.P-1. Also he was informed of the matter neither by the O.P-1 nor by the Complainant. It is added that the O.P-2 has a registered office in the Sambalpur town at Fatk, Budharaja, P.S Aithapali which remains open from 10.00 A.M to 8.00 P.M with his staff present during the working hours, hence it is not correct that the Complainant had a difficulties to find out the O.P-2.
According to the O.P-3, the Complainant came to the O.P-1 on dtd.02.11.2016 to ascertain the address of the O.P-2 and 3. He added that a huge quantity of the product is manufactured in the same chemical process by the Company in a batch which are packed in containers and distributed throughout the India having the same batch number and same product. In the event of a product is defective then the whole batch is defective. The baby food are manufactured scientifically and packed hygienic condition and thoroughly tested before despatch in the market. All the baby food of the same batch are circulated in the market but no complaint is received against the product except this. In the present case it the defect would have notice then it could have been attended with testing the product and replacement of the same. Hence the allegations made in the petition are false and the O.P shall not be penalised.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
- Whether the contents of the Lactodex were not suitable for eating?
- Whether O.Ps has committed any Unfair Trade Practice as well as Restrictive Trade Practice to the Complainant?
From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchase a baby food LACTODEX of 1 Kg available in sealed tin box for his two months old baby on payment of Rs.700/- from the O.P-1. After facing the problem with the Lactodex baby food the Complainant requested to replace the same with an another Tin Box but the O.P-1 denied to do so, he did not treated him as a customer rather neglected the Complainant that he will discuss the matter with Stockist. The Complainant and his family members suffered with inconvenience health and mental agony. But another thing is that the contents of the tin box were not sent to the test laboratories for quality test. So it is doubtful that the Lactodex is substandard in absence of test report. Again the O.P-1 has harassed the Complainant by compelling him to visit him (O.P-1) and the Stockist for months together for which the Complainant has lost the chance to get the Lactodex tested from the appropriate laboratories. However basing on the above facts we order as under:-
ORDER
The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P-1 is directed to (Rupees Five Thousand)(Rupees Two Thousand)All the orders are to be complied within 30 (Thirty ) days of receipt of this copy of order failing which the O.P-1 is liable to pay penal interest of 9% per annum on the above amounts.
Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties receiving acknowledgement of the delivery of thereof.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. 22nd day ofMarch, 2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
I agree,
-sd/-(22.03.2021) -sd/-(22.03.2021)
Smt. S.Tripathy Sri. D.K. Mahapatra
MEMBER.(W) PRESIDENT
Dictated and Corrected
by me.
-sd/-(22.03.2021)
Sri. D.K. Mahapatra
PRESIDENT
