Delhi

East Delhi

CC/605/2014

B.G SARKAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

TODAY TEA - Opp.Party(s)

19 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 605/14

 

Shri Bhanu Gopal Sarkar

H. No. RZ-142, Dharampura-I

Najafgarh, New Delhi – 110 043                                                           ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

Today Tea Limited

409-12, Roots Tower

District Centre, Laxmi Nagar

Delhi – 110 092                                                                              ….Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 28.07.2014

Judgment Reserved for : 19.07.2016

Judgment Passed on : 20.07.2016

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri B.G. Sarkar has filed a complaint against M/s. Today Tea Limited, praying for compensation of Rs. 70,000/- on account of  mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/-  as litigation cost.

2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased one pouch of Today Tea from the local market for a sum of Rs. 1/-.  He has stated that when he checked such pouch, he noticed that its weight was printed on the wrapper as 10gm, though when weighed on the electronic weight machine, it came as 3.44gm.  Thus, he has stated that by doing so, he has got less weight of the product.  Thus, he has claimed an amount of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as litigation charges.  

3.        In the written statement, they have denied all the allegations of the complaint and have stated that it was clearly declared on the pouch that the value based packed weight under 10gm.  They have further stated that the net weight or measure of the commodity in 10gm. or 10ml or less, if sold by weight or measure exempted under Rule 26 of the Legal Merology (Packaged commodities) Rule, 2011. 

To prove his case, the complainant has examined himself on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which he have been stated in the complaint.

No evidence has been filed on behalf of OP.

4.        We have heard the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of OP that the weight printed on the pouch has been less than 10gm.  During the course of arguments, complainant as well as OP have placed on record the wrappers of the pouch.   If the wrappers of the pouch are perused, it is noticed that it has been clearly mentioned on the pouch, MRP as Rs. 1/- and for weight, it has been stated as “Weight under 10gm”.  When it has been clearly stated the weight as under 10gm., the plea of the complainant that he has paid an amount of Rs. 1/- for a pouch of 10gm, cannot be accepted.  Therefore, there cannot be said to be any restrictive trade practice which have been adopted by the company or there has been any deficiency on the part of OP which the complainant has suffered.

            In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of OP nor there is any restrictive trade practice adopted by the company.  Hence, his complaint deserves dismissal and the same stands dismissed. 

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

                      (DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                  (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member                 

 

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

President