State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ashok Kumar Age 34 Years Son Of Gurbachan ... vs Shiva Provision Store Through Its ... on 21 November, 2013
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1180 of 2011
Date of institution: 04.08.2011
Date of Decision : 21.11.2013
Ashok Kumar age 34 years son of Gurbachan Lal son of Nihal Chand
resident of Shahid Balwinder Singh Nage Gali No. 8, Faridkot Tehsil and
District, Faridkot.
.....Appellants/O.Ps
Versus
1. Shiva Provision Store through its proprietor 6/7 Clock Tower Street
Faridkot.
2. Nipun Bio Science through its Proprietor/Manager registered office
Muskan Complex Kirpa Ram Marg Abohar District, Ferozepur.
.....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
01.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Argued By:-
For the appellant : Sh. H.S. Guram, Advocate
For respondent No. 1 : Sh. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
For respondent No. 2 : None
JASBIR SINGH GILL (MEMBER)
The appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal against the order dated 01.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (hereinafter called "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No. 339 of 26.11.2010 vide which the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased seal packed bottle of 875 g.m. of mustard oil bearing Agmark Nipunji Sarson Da First Appeal No. 1180 of 2011 2 Tel from the O.P No. 1 on 5.11.2010 for Rs. 60 vide bill No. 150 dated 05.11.2010. After the purchase of said bottle of mustard oil he took the same to his house and he was stunned to find that the said bottle of mustard oil contained numerous dead insects, mosquitoes and other small filthy particles floating therein which clearly show that the O.Ps were selling substandard/adulterated and very low quality of mustard oil. The complainant returned to the shop of opposite party No. 1 and to inquire about such substandard and low quality mustard oil being sold to the customers but the O.P. No 1 did not listen to the complainant. The sale of substandard and highly adulterated oil could cause serious health problem to the complainant and his family if used unaware of the condition of the said oil. O.P. No. 2 is the main supplier of the mustard oil in the market is also responsible for supplying substandard and highly adulterated mustard oil in the market. Notice was given to the O.Ps, but O.Ps did not give any reply to the notice. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, the complainant filed the complaint with the prayer that the O.Ps be directed to pay Rs. 80,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, opposite party No. 1 field reply taking preliminary objections that the answering O.P never sold the sealed, packed bottle of 875 grams of mustard oil bearing Agmark Nipunji Sarson Da Tel vide bill dated 05.11.2010 rather they sold one litre Kachhi Ghani Sarson oil to the complainant and at no stage the bottle which has been made part of the complainant was ever sold to the complainant. He further stated that the shop of O.P No. 1 is not situated in Main Bazar, Faridkot rather the shop of the O.P is situated at Clock Tower Street In Faridkot. The complainant might have purchased the alleged oil from elsewhere and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
First Appeal No. 1180 of 2011 3
4. O.P. No. 2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 06.01.2011.
5. Parties were allowed by the District Forum to lead their evidence.
6. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavits Ex. C-1 and Ex. C-2, sealed bottle Ex. C-3, postal receipts Ex. C-4 and Ex. C-5, copy of bill dated 05.11.2010 Ex. C-6, receipts of UPC Ex. C-7 and Ex. C-8 legal notice Ex C-9 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, O.P No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Sheetal Prashad Ex. R-1, copy of newspaper Ex. R-2 and Ex. R-3, copy of newspaper Ex. R-4 to Ex. R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the O.Ps.
7. After going through the allegations in the complaint and evidence on the record, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint.
8. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant filed the present appeal on the grounds that the Agmark Nipunji Sarson Da Tel from O.P. No. 1 as is clear from the bill issued by the above said dealer which contained numerous dead insects, mosquitoes and other small filthy particles which are visible to the naked eye and such impurities could cause serious health problem to the complainant and his family members if they had used it unawarely. The learned District Forum wrongly observed that there is apparent contrast in the item allegedly purchased and the item to which bill Ex. C-6 pertains ignoring that the bill was issued by the O.P regarding sale of the mustard oil bottle mentioning therein the word "Kachi Ghani" on its label and prayed for acceptance of the appeal.
First Appeal No. 1180 of 2011 4
9. It is not disputed that the bottle which was purchased by the complainant contained numerous dead insects, mosquitoes and other small filthy particles. Only dispute is that the said bottle regarding the sale mentioning therein the word "Kachhi Ghani".
10. We have perused the bill Ex. C-6. It has been mentioned "Sarson Da Tel Kachi Ghani" as a rate of Rs. 60/- from the Shiva provision store Clock Tower Street Faridkot. As per the complainant he has purchased the Agmark Nipunji Sarson Da Tel and took the same to his house and was stunned to find that there were mosquitoes and other small filthy particles were found floating which was of very low quality of mustard oil. News of adulterated mustard oil was also published in various newspapers like Daily Punjab Kesri, Daily Dainik Jagran and Daily Spokesman on 12.11.2010.
13. As per the O.P. that he has never sold the mustard oil bearing Agmark Nipunji Sarson Da Tel of 875 gm. But he has admitted that he sold the bottle of mustard oil of 1 litre "Kachi Ghani oil for an amount of Rs. 60/- and it is not used for cooking purpose. Complainant never suffered any health problem due to use of said mustard oil.
14. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, grounds of appeal, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties.
15. We have perused the documents and evidence. Bottle was produced, sealed and packed in the District Forum. There was no mention of word "Kachi Ghani" on its label as it was mentioned in the bill Ex. C-6. There was also difference in the weight as the bottle which was purchased by the complainant was 875 gm and the bottle as per the bill Ex. C-6 was of 1 litre and there is no evidence regarding suffering of any health problem to the complainant or to his family.
First Appeal No. 1180 of 2011 5
16. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the order of the District Forum is legal and valid. Therefore we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
17. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 14.11.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
18. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member November 21, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill) RK Member