State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Punjab State Cooperative Milk ... vs Mrs. Sushma Sahni & Others on 2 December, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 321 of 2015 Date of Institution : 30.11.2015 Date of Decision : 02.12.2015 The Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited, Milk Plant, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh, through Sh.Sunil Chaudhry, Area Sales Manager. The Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited, SCO No.153-155, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through Sh.Sunil Chaudhry, Area Sales Manager. ......Appellants/Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 V e r s u s Mrs. Sushma Sahni wife of S. Parminder Singh, aged 36 years. S. Parminder Singh, son of S. Tarantej Singh, aged about 43 years. Ms. Sharanpreet Kaur, daughter of S. Parminder Singh, aged about 15 years. Since minor, through her natural guardians/ parents, complainant No.1 and 2. Ms. Tajpreet Kaur, daughter of S. Parminder Singh, aged about 13 years. Since minor, through her natural guardians/parents, complainant No.1 and 2. All residents of House No.1, Civil dispensary, Kaimbala, U.T., Chandigarh. .....Respondents No.1 to 4/Complainants Arvind Enterprises, Distributors of Verka Products, Sale Depot, Shop No.11, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh through its Owner/Proprietor. ....Respondent No.5/Opposite Party No.1 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by: Sh. N.K. Nagar, Advocate for the appellants.
PER MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER This appeal is directed against an order dated 21.10.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainants and directed the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, as under:-
"(i) To refund the amount of Rs.1,470/- to the complainants paid towards the purchase of the said food product (Kaju Pinni).
(ii) To pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants towards physical harassment, mental agony and emotional pain suffered by them on account of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
(iii) To also pay Rs.7,500/- as litigation costs to the complainants.
This order be complied with by OPs 1 to 3 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above."
Consumer complaint bearing No.830 of 2014 was filed by the complainants, alleging that on 23.10.2014, on the eve of Deepawali, they purchased Kaju Pinni (100% veg) alongwith other eatables from Opposite Party No.1 worth Rs.1,470/- vide retail invoice (Annexure C-1), manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 and marketed by Opposite Party No.3, date of manufacture whereof was mentioned as 21.10.2014 and also it was printed thereon as "best before 10 days from the date of manufacture". It was stated that when the said Kaju Pinni was consumed partially, a hair of length approximately 6.0 cms., was found therein. After consumption of the said Kaju Pinni, condition of complainants No.1, 3 and 4 got worsened, upon which, they were taken to Govt. Multi-Speciality Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh i.e. Emergency OPD Sector 22, wherein, the Doctors diagnosed them as a case of food poisoning. Thereafter, complainant No.2 took the said Kaju Pinni to the Director Health Services, Sector 16, Chandigarh, which was sent to the Food Analyst Department, for testing. The said Department vide report dated 03.11.2014 (Annexure C-6) opined that the Kaju Pinni was unsafe for human consumption. It was further stated that when the matter was brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, they misbehaved with them. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and adoption of unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking various reliefs.
Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, took various objections about maintainability of the consumer complaint. Purchase of the said kaju pinni was disputed. It was stated that the product manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 is IS/ISO 9001 2008 IS 15000 HACCP certified, which passed through various quality test controls and their packaging system leaves no scope for any foreign bodies to enter and there is no possibility of hair embedded in the Kaju Pinni. It was further stated that the complainants have concocted the whole story, with ulterior motive to malign the reputation of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, by mis-using wrapper of the product. It was further stated that it has not been made clear, as to what was eaten before and after the consumption of Kaju Pinni by complainants No.1, 3 and 4. It was further stated that it is not clear from the outpatient cards, whether complainants No.1, 3 and 4 were taken to GMSH-16 or Emergency OPD Sector 22 and they were admitted there or only the outpatient cards were issued. It was further stated that the complainants have nowhere mentioned the date and time, when they had approached the Director Health Services. It was further stated that it is clear from the report of the Food Analyst that there was no foul smell in the said pinni. The remaining averments were denied being wrong.
Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 took almost similar objections and pleas, as have been taken by Opposite Party No.1. It was stated that Opposite Party No.4 has not followed the procedure prescribed in Food Safety & Standards (Laboratory and Sample Analysis) Regulations, 2011. The remaining averments were denied being wrong.
In their rejoinder filed by the complainants, they reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the opposite parties No.1 to 3.
The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
After hearing complainants No.1 and 2, the Counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.2 and 3.
We have heard the Counsel for the appellants, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
At the time of arguments, Counsel for the appellants reiterated the facts, referred to in earlier part of this order.
The first question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants were able to prove that they have purchased the said kaju pinni from opposite party no.1 or not. Perusal of the District Forum record reveals that the complainants have produced a copy of retail invoice No.810 dated 23.10.2014, in respect of purchase of Kaju Pinni, for an amount of Rs.1,470/-, from Arvind Enterprises (Opposite Party No.1). On the other hand, the appellants failed to produce on record, any cogent evidence, to prove anything contrary to the said invoice. Similarly, the affidavits of Sh. Samander Singh and Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Proprietor of M/s Sethi Confectioners, placed on record by the appellants, in the District Forum, are of no use, to disprove the stand of the complainants, in respect of purchase of the said kaju pinni, vide retail invoice No.810 dated 23.10.2014. Had original or carbon copies of retail invoice No.810 dated 23.10.2014, been in custody of the appellants or Sh. Samander Singh and Sh. Gurdeep Singh, aforesaid, then the matter would have been different. In this view of the matter, the case of the complainants, coupled with the joint affidavit of complainants No.1 & 2 and a copy of the retail invoice (Annexure C-1), which goes unrebutted by any document, makes it clear that on 23.10.2014, they had purchased the Kaju Pinni worth Rs.1,470/- vide retail invoice No.810 dated 23.10.2014 from Opposite Party No.1. The District Forum was also right in holding so. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.
The next question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants were able to prove that the said kaju pinni was unsafe for human consumption. It may be stated here that perusal of report (Annexure C-6) of the Food Analyst reveals that he had sent a letter to Mr. Bharat Kanojia, Food Safety Officer, Govt. Multi Specialty Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, while making reference to his memo No.DO-14/665 dated 27.10.2014. As such, it is clear that analysis of the food sample of Pinni was made on the basis of the said memo, sent by the Food Safety Officer, on 27.10.2014. Report pertains to a sample of Verka Kaju Pinni, sent by the Food Safety Officer, GMSH, Sector 16, Chandigarh, which contained loose contents received in a plastic jar alongwith a printed plastic wrapper printed as "Verka Kaju Pinni". The seal affixed on the container of the sample was found intact on arrival and tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Safety Officer. It was opined that one hair of length approx. 6.0 cm. was found embedded in the contents. As per the label declaration, contents were of batch No.294, manufactured on 21.10.2014. After examination, the Food Analyst, Punjab, opined that the sample contained one hair of length approx. 6 cms., which is unsafe for human consumption. In view of the report above, it could very well be said that the complainants were able to prove that the said kaju pinni was unsafe for human consumption. The District Forum was also right in holding so. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are also affirmed.
As far as the procedure to be followed, in respect of the report aforesaid, is concerned, it may be stated here that, in this regard, it was rightly held by the District Forum that it can certainly take action for any unfair trade practice or deficiency in providing service, on the part of the appellants, and that it was not convicting the appellants, for selling an adulterated article. Mere existence of hair in the Kaju Pinni, manufactured by the appellants, itself proves deficiency in providing service on their part, from which, they cannot wriggle out, on bald grounds.
Not only this, perusal of District Forum record reveals that without any document in hand, the appellants have tried their level best, to hush-up the case of the complainants, while taking wretched pleas such as; why the hair was not thrown out, once it came into mouth of the complainants; why the complainants did not visit Civil Dispensary Kaimbala Chandigarh; why the Doctor concerned, has given his handwritten remarks regarding food-poisoning on outpatient cards Annexure C-3 to C-5 instead of computer printed; were the complainants admitted in the said Hospital or only the outpatient cards were issued; Food Safety Officer did not follow the procedure prescribed in Food Safety and Standards (Laboratory and Sample Analysis) Regulations 2011 etc. etc. On the other hand, we have anxiously perused the order passed by the District Forum and noticed that it has scanned each and every document/evidence and after dealing with every objection minutely, had arrived at a definite conclusion, and, at the same time, the bald objections taken by the appellants, did not incline us, to set aside the same.
In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
02.12.2015 Sd/-
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER