State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vishal Sharma vs Ahmedabad Dcmpu on 2 August, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.433 of 2006
Date of institution: 22.03.2006
Date of decision : 02.08.2011
Vishal Sharma aged 28 years son of Sh.Devinder Nath Sharma resident of VPO
Bajwara, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Ahmedabad D.C.M.P.U Limited, Ahmedabad - 380021, MMPO RC
No.73/R-MMPO/93 (Producer of Amul Milk).
2. Verma General Store, Near Canal Colony, Dagana Road, Hoshiarpur
through its proprietor Muneesh Kumar.
3. Depot Incharge, Gujrat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited.,
C/o Country Cold Store Limited village Bhatthia Road, Outside Jalandhar
Octroi Post, Ludhiana - 141 008.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 07.02.2006
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Hitesh Sood, Advocate
For respondents No.1 & 3 : Sh.Anil Chawla, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Sh.Varun Chawla, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
VERSION OF THE APPELLANT
On 15.04.2004, the appellant purchased two bottles of Amul Milk Coffee flavour Batch No.UK-003A3 from Verma General Store respondent No.2 after making the payment of Rs.20/- in cash. This drink was prepared and sealed in the bottle by respondent No.1 on 25.01.2004. He consumed one bottle of Amul Milk purchased from respondent No.2 while he was in the house of his friend First Appeal No.433 of 2006 2 Arvind Rana. The other bottle was kept by his friend in the refrigerator of his house.
2. It was further pleaded that after the consumption of the bottle in the friend's house, the appellant returned home and he felt giddiness and dizziness and also felt pain in the stomach. However, the appellant took it lightly and went to sleep without taking his meals. The appellant could not, however, sleep in the night. On the next day i.e. on 16.4.2004, the appellant went to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur for taking medical treatment. He was examined by Dr.Gurbachan Singh. The appellant explained to him his problem of dysentery, irritation and dizziness and also told him that this medical problem had resulted after he had consumed the contents of one bottle of Amul milk on 15.4.2004. The doctor prescribed some medicines. The appellant was stunned to know that the contents of the Amul bottle had caused food poisoning to him.
3. It was further pleaded that in the evening of 16.4.2004, the appellant also went to the house of his friend Arvind Rana with a view to check the other bottle of Amul milk. The appellant was astonished to see the milk in the bottle lying in the refrigerator of his friend was contaminated and spoiled. The deteriorated condition of the amul milk was visible and apparent. The consumption of the bottle had caused abdominal infection, dysentery and urinary track infection to the appellant. It continued for 2-3 days. Hence, the complaint for compensation to the tune of Rs.65,000/-. Costs were also prayed. VERSION OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 3
4. Respondents No.1 and 3 filed a joint written statement. It was denied if there was any default on the part of respondents No.1 and 3. All the goods manufactured by respondent No.1 are despatched to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 further distributes to its dealers appointed in the towns and districts of every State. It was not in the knowledge of respondents No.1 and 3 as to from whom, the appellant had purchased the bottle in question. The report of the laboratory was not produced. All other facts were denied. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed. First Appeal No.433 of 2006 3 VERSION OF RESPONDENT NO.2
5. Respondent No.2 also filed a separate written statement. It was admitted that the appellant had purchased two bottles of Milk (Amul) from his shop on 15.4.2004. It was, however, denied if the second bottle was kept in the refrigerator or if it was stored properly. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM
6. The appellant filed his affidavit Ex.C1. He also proved prescription slip Ex.C2 and also filed the affidavit of Arvind Rana as Ex.C3. The report of the Public Analyst was proved as Ex.C4. The appellant also filed his supplementary affidavit Ex.C5 and the affidavit of Balraj Kaushal, Advocate as Ex.C6. Dr.Gurbachan Singh, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital was also examined. On the other hand, respondents No.1 and 3 filed the affidavit of Sumeet Saini, Depot Incharge of respondent No.3 as Ex.R2 and the letter of authority as Ex.R1. Documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R3 were also proved.
7. The learned District Forum accepted the complaint partly vide impugned judgment dated 7.2.2006 with costs of Rs.1000/-. Respondent No.2 was directed to make the payment of Rs.7000/- to the appellant with interest @ 9% per annum.
8. Hence, this appeal.
DISCUSSION :
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appeal be accepted qua respondents No.1 and 3 also and the amount of compensation be enhanced.
10. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 3 was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
11. Similarly, the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
12. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered. First Appeal No.433 of 2006 4
13. The appellant had purchased two bottles of Amul milk from respondent No.2 on 15.4.2004. It has been admitted by respondent No.2 in the written statement. However, the bill or the cash memo has not been produced. Therefore, there is no evidence to hold if respondent No.2 had purchased those bottles of amul milk either from respondent No.1 or from respondent No.3 and if so when. Therefore, the dismissal of the complaint qua respondents No.1 and 3 was legal.
14. The very fact that respondent No.2 had sold the milk bottle to the appellant after the expiry of 90 days from the date of its preparation is sufficient to prove that the contents by now had become contaminated. There is also no evidence to hold if respondent No.2 had stored the milk bottle after he had purchased from the authorised agent and before he sold it to the appellant. Therefore, it is the deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.2 for having sold the defective milk in the milk bottle.
15. The report of the Public Analyst Ex.C2 also reveals that the contents of the sample were received in curdled form. These were found to be contaminated with coliform bacteria. The possibility can be there because the bottle was manufactured on 25.1.2004. It was purchased by the appellant on 15.4.2004. The contents of the bottle were examined by the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh after it was received in the laboratory on 19.11.2004. Therefore, obviously, the contents got contaminated by the lapse of time. But as discussed above, these were already contaminated when the milk bottle was sold by respondent No.2 to the appellant.
16. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the appellant has proved that he had to rush to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur on 16.4.2004 and he was attended by Dr.Gurbachan Singh and he had prescribed certain medicines. The prescription slip has been proved as Ex.C2. Dr.Gurbachan Singh had also appeared as witness who has proved that the appellant had presented himself with symptoms of Pyrexia of unknown origin with urinary tract infection with pain First Appeal No.433 of 2006 5 abdomen. Therefore, on the face of it, it is proved that the appellant had suffered the medical problem after the consumption of the contents of amul bottle which was purchased by him from respondent No.2.
17. Since the appellant had suffered the medical problem, therefore, the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.7000/- to Rs.10,000/-.
18. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is partly accepted and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.7000/- to Rs.10,000/-. However, the interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.3000/- shall start from today onwards when on Rs.7000, it shall continue from the date determined by learned District Forum.
19. The costs of Rs.1000/- are maintained.
20. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 20.7.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
21. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(AMARPREET SHARMA)
MEMBER
August 02, 2011.
Paritosh