Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/145/2023

Vishal S/o Moti Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Wine Shop - Opp.Party(s)

Anuj Sharma

31 Oct 2023

ORDER

CC No.145 of 2023.

Vishal            Vs.     Wine Shop.

 

Present:         Smt. Seema Kamboj, Adv. for the complainant.

                      Opponents No.1 to 3 ex-parte.

                    

                   The subject matter of the complaint is bottle of beer, allegedly manufactured by the opponent No.2 and it was sold by the opponent No.3 to the opponent No.1, who further sold the same to the complainant. On receipt of the complaint, notice of complaint was given to the opponents No.1 to 3, but they failed to appear before the Commission and were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

2.                 Vide order dated 19.07.2023, passed by this Commission, the bottle of beer was ordered to be sent to the Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory Haryana, Sector 11D, Chandigarh, to examine the same, to find as to whether, any foreign material/particular is lying in it and if it is so, then as to whether, it is fit for human consumption or not?  The complainant was left at liberty to deposit the requisite fee alongwith sealed wrapper containing the bottle under the hand and seal of this Commission. The fee of the Public Analyst was to be deposited by the complainant.  Wrapper containing the beer bottle after its seal was collected by the complainant party alongwith letter No.668 dated 21.07.2023, addressed to the Public Analysts, State Food Laboratory Haryana, Section 11D, Chandigarh, but the complainant despite availing six effective opportunities including last one also and more reasonable time, failed to deposit the sealed wrapper containing beer bottle with the Public Analyst, Haryana and also failed to deposit requisite fee of the laboratory.

3.                On today, Ms. Seema Kamboj, Adv. appeared on behalf of the complainant by superseding the previous counsel Sh. Anuj Sharma and she submitted, previous counsel had toed the complainant, the laboratory fees was about Rs.2000/-, whereas, the laboratory told its fees more than Rs.10,000/- and the complainant could not arrange the money. He is required some more time. However, this Commission do not agree with the contention of Smt. Seema Kamboj, Adv. On one hand, it is contented, the complainant is unable to arrange amount of Laboratory fee. On the another hand, he is engaging another counsel, superseding the previous counsel. This itself shows, the complainant is deliberately delaying the proceeding due to the reason best known to him. There must be an end to the adjournment for particular purpose and it cannot be granted at infinity. The request made by the counsel for the complainant for further adjournment is declined and the complaint is dismissed for non compliance of order dated 19.07.2023, with the rider, the complainant shall be at liberty to file afresh complaint, if advised so and in the fresh complaint, he will mention the particulars of this complaint and its fate. File be consigned to the records.

President

                                 L. Member                     Member                                   DCDRC, YNR,

             31.10.2023.

 

Typed by: Jitender Sharma, Steno-typist