Punjab

Sangrur

CC/63/2020

Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vishal Mega Mart - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Udit Goyal

12 Apr 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR.

               

                                               

                                                Complaint No.  63

                                                Instituted on:    4.2.2020

                                                Decided on:       12.04.2021

 

 

Rakesh Kumar aged about 59 years son of Shri Charanji Lal, resident of Prem Basti, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant.

                                Versus

Vishal Mega Mart (A franchise store operated by Airplaza Retail Holdings Private Limited), Dhuri Gate, Sangrur through its Manager/ Authorised Signatory.

                                                        …Opposite party

 

For the complainant:                   :     Shri  Udit Goyal, Adv.              

For the OP                                  :     Shri  J.S.Sahni, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member   

 

ORDER:  

 

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

 

        FACTS

1              Complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that he had purchased Bombino Tomato soup from the OP vide bill number 4033060003779 dated 25.10.2019 paid a sum of Rs.55/-.  Further it is averred in the complaint that the complainant had purchased it for personal consumption and  before consumption it was noticed by the complainant that the said article was best to consume before 19.09.2019, as the manufacturing date of the said article is 20.12.2018, which clearly shows that the OP is selling the expiry products to the general public, which is totally illegal and amounts to unfair trade  practice. It is further averred that if the complainant used the said expiry date article, then it would have caused irreparable loss to the health of the complainant and his family.   The complainant immediately brought the matter to the notice of the OP and requested to refund back the amount of Rs.55/- so charged by the OP for the sale of expiry product, but the OP refused to refund back the amount.  Further case of the complainant is that the OP is openly selling the expiry date articles in the market throughout India on their retail outlets, which is a danger to the consumer and in this way the Op is earning crore of rupees. It is further averred that from the above it is clear that the OP is selling the expiry goods to the public and complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.55/- charged by it and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

WRITTEN VERSION

2.             In reply filed by the OP, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not maintainable, that the complaint filed by the complainant is misconceived, erroneous and is also untenable in the eye of law   and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. On merits, it is denied by the OP that the complainant had purchased the product for his personal use.  It has been denied that the complainant ever requested the OP for refund of the amount of Rs.55/- to the complainant and as such it is stated that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious and has been filed with some ulterior motive and to fetch the money from the OP. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

3.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued the complainant had purchased Bombino Tomato soup from the OP vide bill number 4033060003779 dated 25.10.2019 and paid a sum of Rs.55/- to the OP.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased it for personal consumption and  before consumption it was noticed by the complainant that the said article was best to consume before 19.09.2019, as the manufacturing date of the said article is 20.12.2018, which clearly shows that the OP is selling the expiry products to the general public, which is totally illegal and amounts to unfair trade  practice. It is further argued that if the complainant used the said expiry date article, then it would have caused irreparable loss to the health of the complainant and his family.   The complainant immediately brought the matter to the notice of the OP and requested to refund back the amount of Rs.55/- so charged by the OP for the sale of expiry product, but the OP refused to refund back the amount, as such the complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

5.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has argued that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complaint filed by the complainant is misconceived, erroneous and is also untenable in the eye of law   and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The learned counsel for the OP has further argued that the complainant had not purchased the product for his personal use.  It has been denied that the complainant ever requested the OP for refund of the amount of Rs.55/-  and lastly the Op has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.             Complainant Shri Rakesh Kumar has tendered his own affidavit Ex.C-1 and has deposed as per the complaint. Ex.C-2 is the photostat copy of the bill for the purchase of the product in question, Ex.C-3 is the expiry product. It is beyond any doubt that the complainant has clearly proved on record that the OP has sold the expiry product to the complainant.  This fact is further supported by the affidavit of the complainant which is on record as Ex.C-1.  The learned counsel for the OP has also produced the affidavit of Shri Gurinderjeet Singh Ex.OP-2 and has deposed as per the written version.  It is worth mentioning here that the Op should not sell the expiry product to the complainant rather the same should be destroyed.   In the circumstances, we feel that the complaint deserves part acceptance.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.55/- and further to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and further to pay Rs.2000/- as  litigation expenses.

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of sixty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        April 12, 2021.

       

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Jasjit Singh Bhinder) 

           Member                 President