Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/800/2019

Harkirat Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uber Eats - Opp.Party(s)

Vikram Singh Chahal Adv.

22 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Harkirat Singh s/o Des Raj r/o Village Khizerpur, District Hoshiarpur.

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.  Uber Eats, Shop No.20, Ring Road Market, Sarojini Nagar, Gurugram, Haryana 120008 through its authorized representative.

2.  Captain Sam’s, SCO 24-25, Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160009 through its Authorized Representative.

3.  Captain Sam’s, SCO 11, Sector 6, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh email:

4.  Commissioner of Food Safety Chandigarh, Room No.411, 4^th Floor, Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh 160017.

…. Opposite Parties.

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.     Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that the complainant ordered a food article of Regular Classic Cheesy Pizza with Onion Combo on 14.07.2019 vide online app of OP No.1 which has further approved the food outlet of OPs No.2 and 3 i.e. Captain Sam’s.   However, at the time of eating the food, he found that there are white worms moving and even the hair was also found in it and the whole episode was also witnessed by his friends. Immediately, he called the food outlet and the Store Manager made the lame excuses and even the General Manager of the food outlet could not give any satisfactory answer.  In evening, he felt an acute pain in his para umbilical region along with loose stools and his friends took him to the Institute of Health Punjab University wherein the doctor prescribed some laboratory tests and medicines.   Next day, he visited GMCH, Sector 16, Chandigarh wherein the doctor prescribed de-worming tablet Albendazole and advised a lab test and rest. Subsequently, he sent an e-mail at the e-mail address of OPs No.2 and 3  but they have given a wrong e-mail address.  It has further been averred that the OPs have supplied the food which are hazardous to the life and safety of the complainant.     Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.  
2.     Defence of OPs No.1 to 3 was struck off vide order dated 03.02.2022 as they have failed to file the reply and evidence despite availing repeated opportunities  even on costs.
3.     In its written statement, OP No.4 has pleaded that the complainant did not hire its services and as such, he is not a consumer qua it. It has further been pleaded that the complainant did not follow the mandatory provisions contained under the specific statue i.e. Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 and the Rules & Regulations framed thereunder wherein the provisions contained under Section 40 of the said Act enables the purchaser of any article of food to get analyzed such food from the Food Analyst after informing the Food Business Operator at the time of purchase of his intention to have such article of food so analyzed. The complainant can get the article of the food analyzed from the Food Analyst on payment of analysis fees and would receive the report. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.     The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of OP No.4 controverting its stand and reiterating his own.
5.     We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties  and have gone through the documents on record.
6.     In his evidence, the complainant has tendered his detailed affidavit reiterating the averments as made in the complaint along with the supporting documents. From the documentary evidence on record, it is established that the complainant was delivered order of Regular Classic Cheesy Pizza with Onion Combo on 14.07.2019 by OPs No.2 and 3 through OP No.1. The complainant was supplied a contaminated food as after its consumption, he developed abdomen pain for which he had to take treatment from the Medical Officer, Institute of Health, Panjab University as well as General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh. 
7.     In order to rebut the allegations of the complainant, it was imperative on the part of OPs No.1 to 3 to file its written reply and evidence along with some cogent evidence. Although, OPs No.1 to 3 put their appearance through Ms.Sapna Vasudeva, Advocate but despite availing numerous opportunities even on payment of costs, they did not prefer to file the reply and evidence to rebut the allegations made in the complaint due to which their defence was ordered to be struck off. This act of OPs No.1 to 3 draws an adverse inference against them and proves that they have nothing to say in their defence qua the allegations made in the complaint. Hence, in the absence of anything to the contrary, the allegations of the complainant qua them go unrebutted and uncontroverted. Hence, OPs No.1 to 3 are proved to have supplied contaminated food to the complainant and after its consumption, he developed stomachache and had to take medicines for the same due to which he had certainly suffered some mental agony as well as physical harassment.
8.     In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed qua OPs No.1 to 3. They are directed to pay a composite compensation of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses. This order be complied with by OPs No.1 to 3, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
9.     However, the complaint qua OP No.4 stands dismissed as the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on its part.
10.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.