DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KALAHANDI AT BHAWANIPATNA.

C.C. 42 OF 2017

Date of order 13^th  February,2018

PRESENT:-

Sri Aswini Kumar Sahoo, M.A, LL.B    OSPS(I) Sr. Retd.                            President.

Sri Ashok Kumar Patra, Retd. O.I.S  ( I)                                                        Member.

Smt.Bhawani Pattnaik,M.A,LL.B,PGDCLP,                                              Member

            Namrata Sahu,D/o Kulamani Sahoo, Bahaduarbagichapada, Bhawanipatna,     Dist.Kalahandi                                                                      .….Complainant                                                                                Versus

1. The Proprietor, Bangalaore Bakery, Ramsagarpada Complex, Infront of Vimala Convent School, Po: Bhawanipatna, Dist. Kalahandi, Odisha.
2. The Food Inspector, Bhawanipatna, Dist.Kalahandi.                                                                                                                                            …..Opp.Parties
3.  

For the Complainant:Self

For theOP: Sri B.G.K.Achary & Associate Advocate, Bhawanipatna.

  JUDGEMENT

The facts of the complaint in brief is that the during the month of April,2017 the complainant visited the shop of the Opposite Party No.1   and purchased some food items of Rs.650/- and given Rs.700/- for refund of aRs.50/- but the OP No.1 given another item for Rs.50/- which is not required by the complainant and finding no other option the complainant brought the food items. On asking the Opp.Party No.1  misbehaved the complainant and the OP also did not issue bill and money receipt towards  purchased items. In the bakery items there were not mentioned manufacturing and expiry date, quantity packed,  and MRP also not mentioned in the packet and the rate chart also not exhibited in the wall of the shop.  Due to non mentioning of the manufacturing and expiry date in the packet the food articles of the  shop are not fit for human consumption and unhygienic and such type of acts of the Ops are unfair and monopoly restricted trade practice on the part of the OP.  Hence, prayed to  issue necessary direction to the concerned authority for checking  whether the food items are fit for human consumption and whether the OP has obtained food license from the proper authority and also certificate of FSSAI and direct the Ops to pay compensation towards  element of suffering including mental agony, harassment  and such other reliefs the court deems fit and proper. Hence, this complaint.

                        Being noticed the Opp.Party 1 appeared through advocate and filed written version denying the petition allegations  on all its material particulars.  The Opp.Party No.2 though appeared in person in one date and prayed for time and subsequently failed to file Written version and as such the Opp.Party No.2 was set exparte. It is submitted by the OP 1that the            the forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the factum of alleged misbehavior  by the OP 1 to the complainant as averred in the complaint petition and it is not a consumer  dispute  and does not fall within the ambit  and scope   of  the provisions contained in the C.P.Act,1986. The instant complaint  is outside the purview of the C.P.Act and in any event the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The present complaint is nothing but a baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law  only to harass and blackmail the honest businessman like the OP 1 and to malign the reputation of his bakery  business.

                        It is further submitted by the Opp.Party No.1 that the complainant was never been a  customer of the Opp.Party No.1 at any point of time  nor have purchased any food items  from the shop during the month of April,2017 or at any point of time prior after that time. The purchase of food items  worth of Rs.650/-  and paying of Rs.700/-   to the OP 1 is absolutely false and fabricated one . Thus there is no question of forcefully giving of food items of Rs.50/-   and there is no such cause of action on the part of the complainant to  institute the instant  proceeding against the OP1. The allegation of the misbehavior by the OP 1  to the complainant is entirely false  . The question of non issuing of bill and receipt towards the purchase of good s by the complainant was never arises as she was not the customer of the said Bakery at any point of time.  The allegation of the non exhibition of rate chart in the shop is also totally false  .The OP 1 has fixed  his valid License vide License No.12016015000293 as well as Registration certificate vide R/C No.22016015000612 and rate chart of bakery items on the wall upon the visible portion of the shop. The reliefs claimed by the complainant are not guanine  and the complainant is not entitled to got any relief in this case. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint petition and the complainant may be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the OP 1  in accordance with the provision under Sec.26 of the C.P.Act,1986 with the cost of litigation .                                                                                         F I N D I N G

                        On perusal of the document and after hearing both the parties the main point for consideration is whether the  case comes under the  purview of C.P.Act ,  Whether  there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and  whether the complainant  is entitle to any relief  from the Ops as prayed ?

                        The Opposite Party No. 1 is having  a shop and dealing with bakery items and the complainant as alleged  had purchased  the articles worth of Rs.650/-  and paid Rs.700/- towards the  cost of the item and  the Opposite Party in stead of  returning the change  of Rs.50/-  forced the complainant to take  item worth of  Rs.50/-. The complainant alleged  that the Opp.Party No.1 did not grant any money receipt  when she demanded to OP No.1 who instead misbehaved the complainant.

                        We believed that when the Opp.Party No.1  had not granted money receipt it is not possible  for the complainant to prove the allegations of purchase particularly  when the Op taken the stand of complete denial. So we are of the opinion that the complaint comes under the  purview of the C.P.Act as the complainant is a consumer and the OP is trading with article. Through we believe there is element of truth in the allegations, the complainant could not prove her case substantially. The OP 2  who is the Food Inspector of the district who could have given substantial information regarding the establishment of the  OP No.1  remained absent  and set exparte. We feel that  being a responsible officer and holding responsible post the OP 2  did not file his written version nor  appear  for hearing. It is felt that he  had scant respect to the order  and proceeding of this forum.

                        In the above circumstances,  in the absence of a valid evidence the case of the complainant is dismissed but without cost.

                        The copy of the order be sent to the Secretary, Health Department  for his perusal regarding non cooperation by the Food Inspector  in the above case  who  deliberately remaining absent.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 13^th day of February,2018 .

            Member                                 Member                                            President

Document relief upon:

By the Complainant: Nil

By the Opp.Party No.1:

1.  Copy of Food License
2. Copy of Registration Certificate
3. Copy of List of Items.
4.