O R D E R
(By Sri S. Bhaskararao, Member on behalf of the Bench)
This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties to grant Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony by directing the opposite parties to pay the same and to grant costs of the complaint and and such other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant has purchased two milk packets from the 1st opposite party on 14.05.2007. The complainant has boiled one milk packet and given the same to the complainant’s daughter Vennela. To the surprise of the complainant, after drinking the milk, the complainant’s daughter suffered with vomiting. The complainant was taken to hospital for treatment and was informed that due to food adulteration the same was occurred. The complainant found a dead cockroach inside the packet. The complainant made a complaint to the Panchayat Office and also M.R.O., Yeleswaram. The complainant representative V.V. Ravikishore made complaint to the Food Controller, Zone-II, Kakinada on 16.05.2007 along with dead cockroach inside the packet. The Food Controller, Kakinada has given a certificate along with report of Laboratory confirming dead cockroach inside the packet. Hence, this complaint.
3 The 1st opposite party is remained exparte. While the 2nd opposite party filed written version disputing the claim of the complainant. The complaint is absolutely bared by limitation and even as per the complaint there is no primafacie material to prove the allegations made in the complaint. It may be seen that no material object is placed before this Forum in support of the complaint that is to say the packet in which it is alleged that there is a dead cockroach.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, her affidavit has been filed and Exs. A1 to A4 have been got marked. The documents Exs.B1 to B3 are marked by the opposite party.
5. The points which arise for consideration are:-
1) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the directions as prayed for?
3) To what relief?
6 The complainant approached this Forum for Redressal of consumer grievance against sale of defective and unhealthy and un-purity milk packets and deficient services of opposite parties.
7 The complaint argued that the opposite party sold unhealthy and un-purity milk packets which were consumed by the complainant’s daughter and resulting vomiting and un-healthy fell sick for some period.
8 Perused the case record before this Forum and arguments heard by both sides. This Forum on careful perusal of the record came to conclude that the milk packet having a dead cockroach inside in packet, which was supported by the public analyst report. All the circumstances of the case point out opposite parties manufacturing defective and un-pure milk packets supplied to the consumer and carried defective services as alleged by the complaint.
9 The complainant relied on empty milk packet where the description of Dairy is mentioned as ‘Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Producers Company Ltd.”
10 The Public Anaylist Report indicates that the sample which was sent by the Food Inspector, Kakinada Municipal Corporation belongs to Vijaya Dairy in a short Form and from they stated that the milk packet having a dead cockroach inside the packet. It is not in a position to analyze the same. The opposite parties while filing the written version stated that the packet does not belong to them, as opposite party naturally deny the complaint contentions. In written version the authorized person while signing the written version affixed the firm Rubber Stamp which reads “SRI VIJAYA VISKHA MILK Producers Company Limited”.
11 Under the above circumstances of the case this Forum came to the conclusion that the manufacturing company of milk packets were only SRI VIJAYA VISAKHA MILK Producers Company Limited, Visakhapatnam. The opposite parties are very negligently packed the milk packets and supplied to consumers in reckless manner. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
12. In the result, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- [rupees fifty thousand only] as compensation to the complainant and pay Rs. 5,000/- [rupees five thousand only] cost of the complaint. The above directions are to be complied within two months from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 07th day of November, 2014
Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant : None For opposite party : None
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 16.05.2007 Letter issued by the complainant to the Assistant Food Controller, Kakinada
Ex.A2 26.05.2007 Letter issued by the Senior Scientific Officer & Public Analyst, Visakhapatnam to the Food Inspector, Kakinada
Ex.A3 29.05.2007 Letter issued by the Food Inspector, Kakinada to V V Ravi Kishore, Samalkot
Ex.A4 Notice issued by the opposite party counsel to the complainant counsel
For opposite parties:-
Ex. B1 Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties
Ex.B2 Notice issued by the opposite parties to the complainant
Ex.B3 Acknowledgment
Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
