State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hardeep Singh vs The Punjab State Co-Operative Milk ... on 11 June, 2015
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 171 of 2014
Date of institution: 24.2.2014
Date of Decision: 11.6.2015
Hardeep Singh son of S. Balkar Singh, resident of House No. 333, Ward
No. 11, Village & Post Office Sanour, Tehsil & District Patiala.
Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. The Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers' Federation Limited,
SCO 153-155, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160 022, through its
Managing Director.
2. Verka Factory Gate Milk Bar, Patiala, Factory Outlet of Verka,
Sirhind Road, Opposite Silver Oak Marriage Palace, Patiala through
its General Manager.
Respondents/OPs.
First Appeal against the order dated 5.11.2013
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Hardeep Singh, in person
For the respondent : Sh. S.B. Singh, Advocate
2
FIRST APPEAL NO. 171 OF 2014
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
The appellant/complainant(hereinafter referred as "the complainant") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 5.11.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No.183 dated 28.5.2013 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. A consumer complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the respondents/OPs(hereinafter referred as OPs) on the averments that he purchased SFM Milk 14 bottles of 200 ML each @ Rs. 16/- per bottle for a sum of RS. 224/- from Op No. 2 vide cash bill No. 002635 dated 9.4.2013. After consuming of the said milk bottle, the complainant started loose motion and low blood pressure and was taken to Govt. Medical College & Rajindra Hospital, Patiala on 16.4.2013 where some medicines were prescribed to him and he spent a sum of Rs. 97/- for the purchase of medicines from V.V. Chemists & Druggists. The complainant approached OP No. 2 and disclosed about the defective milk bottles but their employees misbehaved with the complainant in the presence of Amarjit Singh, friend of the complainant, as such, the complainant had suffered mental agony and torture committed by the Ops. One defective bottle was lying in the custody of the complainant. It was alleged that there was deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. He has claimed compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-. 3 FIRST APPEAL NO. 171 OF 2014
3. The complaint was contested by the Ops, who filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable as he was not a consumer under the Act; the allegations levelled in the complaint were totally baseless and concocted; there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops; the complainant had not come to the Forum with clean hands. OP No. 1 is manufacturing and bottling about 25000 milk bottles every day, which were properly UV lights and nothing questionable or unhygienic was left in it and the prepared packed bottle is kept under observation for three days. In case the milk stays fresh during this incubation period, the same never gets stale or curdled. Specifications were given on the bottle itself. In case any bottle is defective, every salesman is authorised to replace the defective bottle. Seeing the quality of the Op ISO 2000 certificate was issued to the OP. Sickness, if any, experienced by the complainant could not be result of the consumption of the product of the Op and that the allegations levelled in the complaint were malafide, for which the Ops reserve their right to seek their remedy. On merits, purchase of the milk by the complainant alleged in the complaint was admitted. Other allegations have been denied. The averments stated in the preliminary objections were reiterated. It was again reiterated that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Op, therefore, it be dismissed.
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. CA, cash memo Ex. C-1, OPD 4 FIRST APPEAL NO. 171 OF 2014 slip Ex. C-2, bill of chemist Ex. C-3, legal notice Ex. C-4, postal receipts Exs. C-5 & 6. On the other hand, the OPs had tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurmail Singh, Quality Control Manager Ex. Op- A, authority letter Ex. OP-1, procedure Ex. Op-2, process flow chart Ex. Op-3, reply to legal notice Ex. Op-4.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. In the appeal, it has been contended by the appellant/complainant in person that the evidence on the record was not properly appreciated by the learned District Forum. The produce of the milk has been admitted. With the consumption of that Milk, the complainant had became sick and he had placed on the record the medical treatment record of Govt. Medical College and Rajindra Hospital, Patiala but the same was not considered. The complainant had approached Op No. 2 for replacement of one bottle, which was left with him and was defective but the same was not replaced, rather, the employees of OP No. 2 misbehaved with the complainant.
10. No doubt that the complainant had purchased 14 bottles of SFM 200 ML quantity Milk from the OP on 9.4.2013. On 16.4.2013, he consumed it but after consuming the same, he suffered loose motion and for the treatment, it has been alleged that loose motion to him were due to defective milk. In case any item is mis-branded and 5 FIRST APPEAL NO. 171 OF 2014 one bottle was available with him then procedure has been given under this Act for testing the same, for which a reference can be given to Clause 13(c)(d)(e) but no such application was given by the complainant to send his sample to appropriate laboratory for testing. Even otherwise there was no private report obtained by the complainant and produced on the record that the milk so purchased from the Op was defective. No doubt that document Ex. C-2 given by Rajindra Hospital, Patiala refers Diarrhoea to which the complainant was suffering but there is no evidence that Diarrhoea was only due to the consumption of Milk Bottle for that there can be some blood test or stool test but the complainant did not opt for that that the Diarrhoea was only due to consumption of milk. No findings can be given that the milk of the OP was defective. Then no evidence is coming forth how the bottles be stored and the bottles were consumed after one week of its purchase. There are no averments in the complaint that it was kept in the Refrigerator. Normally these items are required to be kept in the Refrigerator so that these may not spoil. Then it has not been mentioned what was the date of expiry. Every bottle bears the date of expiry and in case the complainant used it after the date of expiry then also there can be defective milk. Whatever a reason, the complainant was not been able to place on the record that he had suffered Diarrhoea only due to defective milk purchased from the Ops.
11. Another point has been raised by the complainant that when he had gone for replacement of one bottle of milk left with him then official of the Op did not replace it and rather misbehaved with 6 FIRST APPEAL NO. 171 OF 2014 him. Apart from his own statement, no other evidence has come on the record. In case any official had misbehaved with him then he could file a complaint to the next senior official or M.D. of the Milk Plant, no such complaint was filed to the M.D., if he feel so insulted on account of any mal-treatment, he could file a criminal complaint. Under the CP Act, we are to deal with deficiency or unfair trade practice with regard to any product or services. Criminal behaviour of any official is not to be dealt with under this Act.
12. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the findings so recorded by the District Forum are correct and we affirm the same.
13. In view of the above, we do not see any merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed in limine; without any order as to costs.
14. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.6.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
June 11, 2015. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member