Punjab

Sangrur

CC/615/2019

Smt.Pooja Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vishal Mega Mart - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.K.C.Sharma

12 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No.615

 Instituted on:   02.12.2019

                                                                        Decided on:     12.07.2022

 

Smt. Pooja Singla W/o Munish Kumar, R/O Hargobindpura, College Road, Sangrur, District Sangrur 148001.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

Vishal Mega Mart, Opp. Naina Devi Mandir, Dhuri Gate, Sangrur 148001.

             ….Opposite party

 

For the complainant    : Shri K.C.Sharma, Adv.              

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

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

                        Sarita Garg, Member

 

                                                      FINAL ORDER

 

1.             Complainant has filed this complaint alleging inter-alia that on 20.10.2019 she purchased some household articles worth Rs.323/- from the OP including Bombino Tomato Soup of Rs.55/-. Opposite party issued her invoice bearing number 4023060015494 dated 20.10.2019 which was also paid then and there.  This is how complainant acquired status of consumer vis-à-vis OP which in turns can also well termed to be a supplier.  However, complainant noticed that  Bombino Tomato Soup  which she had purchased  was manufactured on 20.12.2018 and there was a clear advisory mentioned thereon that the said product should have been used best before 19.09.2019 which shows that the said product could have been used for human consumption till 19.09.2019 without any harmful effect.  Faced with this situation, the complainant approached the OP with a request either to refund her the price of the said Bombino Tomato Soup worth Rs.55/- or to replace the same but what to talk of doing either of the things OP engaged her into unreasonable situation thereby leaving complainant with no other option except to approach this Commission with present complaint. As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs.55/- being price of the Bombino Tomato Soup and further to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs.7500/- as litigation expenses. 

2.             After filing of this complaint, notice of the same was issued to the OP. The OP in its reply took some preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complaint is misconceived, erroneous and is also untenable in the eyes of law, that the complaint is wholly and utterly devoid of any grounds and that the complainant has failed to meet its burden of proof by having failed to establish that the product in question is in the same one as had been sold by the OP to the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant has attempted to mislead this Commission by suppressing the nuanced and well settled legal difference between a ‘Best Before Date’ and ‘Expiry date’ of a product. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. On merits, the allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.  Even the purchase of the product from the OP by the complainant has been denied.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             During this process, the learned counsel for complainant tendered sworn affidavit  of the complainant reiterating all the averments of the complaint as Ex.C-1, copy of the bill/invoice Ex.C-2 and copy of the picture clicked of the original product Ex.C-3 showing its price as well as manufacturing date and advisory mentioned thereon as well and closed evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP/1 affidavit of Shri  Gurinderjeet Singh and Ex.OP/2 copy of authority letter and closed evidence.

5.             We have heard the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents produced on the file.

6.             At the very outset, it is significant to note that the averments of the complaint stands duly substantiated through sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 wherein the same were reiterated as to how the complainant purchased some household articles on 20.10.2019 including the Bombino Tomato Soup, photo stat copy of product has been produced on record as Ex.C-3. However, later on complainant noted that the Bombino Tomato Soup which she had picked up from the shelf put up by the OP  was found to be manufactured on 20.12.2018 and as per the advisory appended thereon the said product could have been used well before 19.09.2019. Further, it was also contended that the OP or its employees or its Manager did not take enough pains to remove the expired articles from the shelf in its store. So they were responsible for committing deficiency in service as the same could have exposed its customers to certain harmful effects.  It also evolves from the record that the contention raised by the complainant stands duly proved on record through the documents Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 and also for the reason that the OP has not come forward to produce any such evidence to rebut the contention of complainant which also shows that the OP did not have anything to say in its defence. This oral as well as documentary evidence inspires confidence as the same has also remained unrebutted except the OP has only filed a sworn affidavit of Shri Gurinderjeet Singh, Department Manager, Ex.OP-1. We don’t see any reason why this unrebutted evidence should not be believed.

7.             Accordingly, this complaint stands allowed and the OP is directed to refund the price of  Bombino Tomato Soup  i.e. Rs.55/- forthwith along with Rs.2000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.1500/- as litigation expenses.    This order be complied with by the opposite party within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

8.     The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases          

9.             A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                July 12, 2022.