State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Heritage Foods Limited vs D. Jaipal Reddy on 13 July, 2022
Before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)
of Telangana, Eruvaka Building, Khairathabad at Hyderabad
FANO.323 OF 2017 AGAINST CC NO.380 OF 2015
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT cOMMISSION, RANGA REDDY
Between:
Heritage Foods Limited,
having its registered office at
6-3-541/C, Panjagutta,
Hyderabad, represented by its
Legal Executive D.Sandeep Kumar
Appellant/Opposite party No.2
And
1) D.Jaipal Reddy S/o D.Narsimha Reddy
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Advocate,
R/o H.No.8-4-42, Pavanpuri Colony,
Kharmanghat, Ranga Reddy district.
...Respondent/Complainant
2) Q.A.Manager,
Lion Dates Implex Pvt., Ltd.,
2 7 / 3 , Cauvery Road, Trichy - 620 002,
Ph: 3313, Chennai - 600 034.
(Respondent No.2 is not a
necessary party to this appeal)
..Respondent/Opposite party No.2
Counsel for the Appellant G.Mallijarjun Rao
SThaamaRes kskasni k
Counsel for the Respondents
CORAM:
******
Hon'ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal President
and
Smt Meena Ramanathan Member
Wednesday, the Thirteenth day of July Two Thousand Twenty Two Oral Order: *** This is an appeal preferred by the Opposite party No.1 aggrieved by the orders dated 11.08.2017 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy in CC No.380/2015 in allowing the complaint in part and directing the Opposite party to offer five bottles of jam free of cost to the 2 Complainant and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-
for causing mental agony and hardship and to pay Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation granting time of (30) days for compliance, failing which, the amount awarded shall carry interest 12% per annum along with a penalty of Rs.10,000/- by dismissing the complaint against Opposite party No. 1.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3) It is the case of Complainant that he purchased jam bottle on 17.10.2014 from Opposite party No.2 mart under "buy one get one free offer by paying the consideration while purchasing other items. When he went home and opened the bottle, he was shocked to find insect i.e., bee' and the jam bottle in was totally damaged condition. When complained, the Manager of Opposite party No.2 refused to receive but acknowledged the complaint. By selling such defective food articles containing insect that too in damaged condition. Had the same been consumed without noticing, himself and his family members would have sustained loss and injury. Hence, complaining deficiency of service filed the present complaint with a prayer to direct the Opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and award costs of Rs. 10,000/- and further order them to discontinue such unfair trade practice.
4) Opposite party No.1 filed its written version contending that it is operating cash and carry stores in major towns of India as retailers. The allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any cause of action to claim damages. The Complainant filed frivolous complaint and is unnecessarily dragging them into litigation. Hence, complaint is liable to be saddled with exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/- in addition to awarding damages of Rs.50,000/- for making false, unfounded, wild and baseless allegations. The allegation of insect found in the jam bottle is an invented one and there is no iota of truth in it. Had really there been an incident, Complainant would not have taken 11 months to issue a legal notice. The Complainant produced the jam bottle in October 2016 i.e., two years after the date of its purchase, which is beyond the period of six months printed on the bottle.
35) In fact, they were awarded Best Admired Retailer' and they would not sell a defective product and therefore, it is needless for them to make anybody believe that the product sold by them is of good quality. There 1s no justification in the claim of Complainant for Rs.3,00,000/ Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
order to
6) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in
evidence as PW1 and
prove his case, the Complainant filed his affidavit material object as M.0.1.
got marked the documents Ex.A1 to A6 and the their Manager filed On behalf of Opposite party No. 1, one Dharma Rao T, his affidavit evidence as RW1.
the material available
on
) T h e District Forum after considering
by orders
CC No.380 of 2015,
record, allowed the complaint bearing
dated 11.08.2017, as stated, at paragraph No.1, supra.
Aggrieved by the said orders, the Appellant preferred the present
8) Forum below failed to consider the fact that appeal contending that the that it not the manufacturer of the product in question and they are brought record in proper perspective.
failed to consider the evidence on
bottle in question was not sent to
It failed to consider the fact that the
purpose of testing in order to prove the claim of the
laboratory for the
Respondent/Complainant. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting
aside the orders impugned.
The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned
9) order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered irregularity or with, in any manner? To what reliefP A careful perusal of the preceding paragraphs reveal that the 1st
10) bottle from Respondent/Complainant has admittedly purchased the jam the Appellant/Opposite party No.2 on 17.10.2014 under the scheme of buy one get one free along with other articles and when he went home and opened one of the two jam bottles, he found an insect in it.
Immediately, he approached the Manager of the Appellant mart and lodged a written complaint which is acknowledged by Opposite party No.2. Thereafter, since no action was taken for long, legal notice came to be issued on 08.09.2015 which was replied denying the allegations.
11) what is manifest from the above is that admittedly there was a 1oreign object in one of the two jam bottles which the Complainant Purchased from the Appellant. In view of the complaint Ex.A2 made to the Opposite party on 17.10.2014 itself, the allegation of the complaint cannot be said to be an after-thought. That apart, when he bought two DottIes, the grievance of the Complainant would not have been only in respect of one of the bottles which he brought. Further-more, the foreign object that is found in the jam bottle is an insect/ bee which could not Dy any stretch of imagination said to have been planted by the Complainant. The other objection of the Appellant/Opposite party are not relevant insofar as the factum of there being a foreign object in the jam bottle is Concerned. The question of the defective product being referred to any analysiS or examination will not arise in a case of this nature where the ioreign object is apparent even to a naked eye. The District Forum has appreciated all the above aspects in proper perspective and held that the product that is sold by the Appellant/Opposite party No.2 was defective.
We are not inclined to interfere with the said finding of fact but however it is found that the learned District Forum has ordered the Appellant/ Opposite party to give five jam bottles free in addition to payment off compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs. We see no reason to uphold this finding directing the Appellant/ Opposite party to again supply free five jam bottles. Subject to this modification, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
12) In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the
District Forum insofar it directs the
as
Appellant/Opposite party No.2 to
pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/-. The direction of the District Forum to give five bottles free cannot be sustained and is however, set aside.