State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Singla Karyana Bhandar vs Navjot Singh on 14 February, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
1) Revision Petition No.26 of 2021
Date of institution : 01.10.2021
Reserved On : 08.02.2022
Date of decision : 14.02.2022
1. Singla Karyana Bhandar, Shop No.584, Sector-3A, Railway
Road, near PNB, Mandi Gobindgarh, through its
Partner/Incharge and responsible person Mangat Rai Singla.
2. Mangat Rai Singla, Partner/Incharge and responsible person,
Singla Karyana Bhandar, Shop No.584, Sector-3A, Railway
Road, near PNB, Mandi Gobindgarh.
....Petitioners/Opposite Parties
Versus
Navjot Singh s/o Late S. Davinder Singh, R/o # 437, Sector-3A, Main
Bazar, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
....Respondent/Complainant
Revision Petition under Section 47(1) (b) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for
setting aside the impugned order dated
02.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib in Consumer
Complaint No.53/2020.
2) Revision Petition No.27 of 2021
Date of institution : 01.10.2021
Reserved On : 08.02.2022
Date of decision : 14.02.2022
Revision Petition No.26 of 2021 2
1. Singla Karyana Bhandar, Shop No.584, Sector-3A, Railway
Road, near PNB, Mandi Gobindgarh, through its
Partner/Incharge and responsible person Mangat Rai Singla.
2. Mangat Rai Singla, Partner/Incharge and responsible person,
Singla Karyana Bhandar, Shop No.584, Sector-3A, Railway
Road, near PNB, Mandi Gobindgarh.
....Petitioners/Opposite Parties
Versus
Sunder Pal Goyal S/o Sh. Durga Dass Goyal, R/o Shop No.207,
Sector-4D, Shastri Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District
Fatehgarh Sahib.
....Respondent/Complainant
Revision Petition under Section 47(1) (b) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for
setting aside the impugned order dated
02.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib in Consumer
Complaint No.240/2020.
3) Revision Petition No.28 of 2021
Date of institution : 01.10.2021
Reserved On : 08.02.2022
Date of decision : 14.02.2022
1. Singla Karyana Bhandar, Shop No.584, Sector-3A, Railway
Road, near PNB, Mandi Gobindgarh, through its
Partner/Incharge and responsible person Mangat Rai Singla.
....Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2
Versus
1. Sunder Pal Goyal S/o Sh. Durga Dass Goyal, R/o Shop No.207,
Sector-4D, Shastri Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh,
District Fatehgarh Sahib.
Revision Petition No.26 of 2021 3
....Respondent/Complainant
2. SKCB Foods Pvt. Ltd., 408/3, Katra Maigran, Khari Baoli, Delhi-
110006, through its Director Saurabh Goel and Harish Goel.
...Respondent/Opposite Party No.1
Revision Petition under Section 47(1) (b) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for
setting aside the impugned order dated
02.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib in Consumer
Complaint No.239/2020.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present (RP No.26 of 2022):-
For the petitioners : Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Runish Dhiman, Advocate JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT By this common order, the aforesaid three Revision Petitions i.e. Revision Petition No.26 of 2021, Revision Petition No.27 of 2021 and Revision Petition No.28 of 2021 shall be disposed of, as common question of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts are being extracted from Revision Petition No.26 of 2021. Revision Petition No.26 of 2021 4 Revision Petition No.26 of 2021
2. The petitioners/opposite parties-Singla Karyana Bhandar and another have approached this Commission to challenge the impugned order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short, "the District Commission") in Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2020, whereby application filed by the respondent/complainant seeking permission to deposit the food items in the District Commission was allowed.
3. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
4. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the Revision Petition are that the respondent/complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2020 before the District Commission with the averments/allegations that he purchased certain food items/goods from the petitioners/opposite parties namely packet of Soya Warrian, Soya Champ, Murkur Namkeen, Pakora Plain, Organic Shakkar, Candy mix for an amount of ₹424/- vide Memo No.20/42625 and ₹44/- vide Memo No.20/42637. Said items were without proper labelling/declarations with respect to nutritional values, ingredients, date of packing, date of expiry, address of manufacturer/packer, quality and quantity of products.
5. Said complaint was filed on 23.09.2020, wherein notices were issued to the petitioners/opposite parties. In response to notice, Revision Petition No.26 of 2021 5 the petitioners/opposite parties appeared before the District Commission on 19.08.2021 and also filed Power of Attorney along with written version and evidence. It is further mentioned that the case was fixed for arguments on 26.08.2021. The reply along with evidence was also filed before the District Commission on 26.08.2021. On 26.08.2021 itself, the counsel for the complainant filed an application for seeking permission to deposit the food items in the District Commission. The case was taken up on 26.08.2021. However, the counsel for the complainant neither appeared on said date of hearing nor produced the food items before the District Commission. Thereafter, the case was listed for final arguments on 02.09.2021. On said date i.e. 02.09.2021, the petitioners/opposite parties filed reply to the application filed by the complainant, raising objection that the application was not maintainable at that stage. The application filed by the complainant was allowed vide impugned order dated 02.09.2021, by directing him to produce/submit six food articles as mentioned in the application on the next date of hearing i.e. 16.09.2021. However, no articles were produced before the District Commission on 16.09.2021 also.
6. The petitioners/opposite parties, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the District Commission, have filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission, by raising arguments.
Revision Petition No.26 of 2021 6
7. Ms. Meena Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the District Commission has not taken into consideration the issue of limitation, as the application was time barred being filed beyond the period of limitation as provided under Regulation 14 (1) (iv) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Learned counsel further submits that cause of action arose to the complainant on 25.07.2020, when he purchased the products from the petitioners and as such the application was filed beyond the period of limitation. It has further been argued that the averments have been made in the application without any evidence and efforts are being made to make out a new case. Learned counsel further submits that the District Commission has not taken into consideration that the complainant himself has admitted in the application that the food items are of perishable nature but still the application was allowed. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint was filed on 23.09.2020 and now after a period of one year, the expiry date of food items might have expired as the expiry date of every eatable item is normally six months. The impugned order has been passed without having any opinion of the expert and also without taking into consideration the period of limitation. Said order is likely to cause irreparable loss to the reputation of the petitioners, as the period of expiry has already been Revision Petition No.26 of 2021 7 lapsed/expired. At the end, learned counsel submits that the complainant has filed the application with malafide intention and just to cause delay and the same has been done without following the provisions of Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which are mandatory provisions. The purpose is to build up a new case.
8. Sh. Runish Dhiman, learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is self-speaking and no interference is required. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners/opposite parties were indulged in mis- branding, mis-leading for the purpose of promoting the sale, supply, use and consumption of articles by adopting 'unfair trade or deceptive practice'. Learned counsel further submits that every consumer has a right to know about the product and also to know as to when such product was manufactured or packed. It has further been submitted that there is no limitation to file the application for depositing the food items according to the provisions of law and the same can be moved at any point of time, as there is no bar for the same. Learned counsel further submits that the issue of limitation has not been raised by the petitioners/opposite parties in the reply filed to the application. The present Revision Petition has been filed just to delay the proceedings and to harass and humiliate the complainant and also to hide their unfair trade practice. In support of his contentions, learned Revision Petition No.26 of 2021 8 counsel has also relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of case Qamar Jahan & Anr. v. Nisar Ahmed Tyagi & Ors. 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 641.
9. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission, which is under challenge in this Revision Petition, as well as written arguments filed on their behalf.
10. Facts of the case regarding filing of the complaint and thereafter moving an application during pendency of the complaint and the impugned order dated 02.09.2021 passed therein, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Revision Petition, are not in dispute.
11. Admittedly, the complainant purchased certain food items/ goods against proper Memo/Bill and paid the amount of consideration. As per case of the complainant, the food items/goods sold by the petitioners/opposite parties to the complainant were of sub-standard quality and mis-branded. It being so, they are indulging in 'unfair trade practice' by violating the rights of the consumer. With these allegations, the complaint was filed by the complainant. During pendency of the complaint, an application was moved by the complainant for granting permission to deposit certain food items, which are of perishable nature, which has been allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order. In the Revision Petition, it is Revision Petition No.26 of 2021 9 mentioned that the case was fixed for arguments on 26.08.2021. However, perusal of impugned order dated 02.09.2021 shows that besides allowing the application filed by the complainant seeking permission to deposit the food items, the request of counsel for the complainant for producing some evidence along with rejoinder was also allowed. The case was fixed for 16.09.2021 for evidence of both the parties. However, the fact remains that the application was filed at the belated stage to place on record or to deposit food items, which were of perishable nature. It is also relevant to mention here that the complaint was filed by the complainant on 23.09.2020 and the application for producing on record the food items was filed on 26.08.2021. Regulation 14(1) (iv) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 is relevant, which is reproduced as under:
"The period of limitation for filing any application for which no period of limitation has been specified in the act or the rules or in these regulations shall be thirty days from the date of the cause of action or the date of knowledge."
12. On perusal of said provision, the period for filing the application is 30 days in case no period of limitation has been specified in the Act or Rules or Regulations for filing any application. In the present case, admittedly the application dated 26.08.2021 was filed after a period of 30 days (specifically after more than one year from the date of filing of the complaint) and the same was clearly Revision Petition No.26 of 2021 10 barred by limitation, as per provision mentioned in the above said Regulation. Cause of action arose to the complainant on 25.07.2020 i.e. when he had purchased the products from the petitioners/opposite parties. In case any item was sold beyond the date of expiry, the cause of action arose to the purchaser on the date of purchase of the item. These averments have not been made in the complaint by giving details of date of manufacturing, date of expiry etc. All these factors are necessary to be seen to attract the provisions of the Act and to prove the allegations of the 'unfair trade practice' to show that the particular item was sold after the date of expiry. In case, by allowing the application by bringing on record/placing on record certain food items, the purpose is not going to be served, as the relevant items are those items which were purchased by the complainant against proper receipt/bill on a particular date and are perishable. With the passage of time, not only the date of expiry had lapsed but it cannot be said as to which of the items were purchased on that particular date. No expert report showing the inferior quality and expiry date on the date of purchase has been placed on record.
13. In view of above discussion, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed simply on the ground that no prejudice is going to be caused to the parties if the application is allowed. However, neither any reasoning has been given, nor any justification and as such the impugned order has been passed without any application of Revision Petition No.26 of 2021 11 mind. The authority relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent /complainant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
14. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the District Commission is set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the respondent/complainant seeking permission to deposit the food items is dismissed. However, the District Commission is at liberty to decide the issue of date of expiry of the items, if sold beyond that date or inferior quality if anything has been mentioned in the complaint itself.
Revision Petition No.27 of 2021
15. In view of detailed order passed in Revision Petition No.26 of 2021, the present Revision Petition is also allowed and the impugned order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the District Commission is set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the respondent/complainant seeking permission to deposit the food items is dismissed. However, the District Commission is at liberty to decide the issue of date of expiry of the items, if sold beyond that date or inferior quality if anything has been mentioned in the complaint itself.
Revision Petition No.26 of 2021 12Revision Petition No.28 of 2021
16. In view of detailed order passed in Revision Petition No.26 of 2021, the present Revision Petition is also allowed and the impugned order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the District Commission is set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the respondent/complainant seeking permission to deposit the food items is dismissed. However, the District Commission is at liberty to decide the issue of date of expiry of the items, if sold beyond that date or inferior quality if anything has been mentioned in the complaint itself.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (URVASHI AGNIHOTRI) MEMBER February 14, 2022.
(Gurmeet S)