State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dhiraj K. Kathuria vs (Retailer) Big Bazaar Store (As ... on 17 October, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. 292 of 2014 Date of Institution 28.08.2014 Date of Decision 17.10.2014 Dhiraj K. Kathuria s/o Sh.Pindi Dass, R/o 3-D, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana. ..Appellant/complainant. Versus 1. (Retailer) Big Bazaar Store (as division of Future Value Retails Limited), Located at Elante Mall, Plot No.178 & 178A, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Store Manager. 2. Principal Operator of Big Bazaar Stores, Future Value Retails Limited, Sobo Central, 5th Floor, 84, Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya Marg, Tordeo, Mumbai, through its Managing Director. 3. Manufacturer Future Agrovet Limited, Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai, through its Managing Director. ...Respondents/Opposite Parties. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER
MRS.
PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:Sh.Sukhwinder Singh Rai, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.Tarun Gupta, Advocate for respondents.
PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.07.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Parties (now respondents) as under :-
15. We thus allow this complaint and direct the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, to pay a consolidated compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant for having had to resort to legal recourse to prove his point. No costs.
16. This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy failing which the compensation amount of Rs.2,000/- shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order, till actual payment.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased one pack of Raw Shelled Groundnut (Golden Harvest Daily) FB-Groundnut for a sum of Rs.52/- from Big Bazaar Store (Opposite Party No.1) vide retail invoice No.0015090 dated 06.09.2013, which got spoiled before the lapse of the specified best before date of six months. The said pack of Golden Harvest Daily Groundnut was manufactured by Future Agrovet Limited (Opposite Party No.3) and the statutory information on the labels of packet of Groundnut (FB Groundnut) stated that the pack was manufactured and packed on 8.8.2013 with shelf life i.e. best before six months from packaging with a specified storage condition store in cool and dry place (Exhibit C-2). It was further stated that it was evident from the information provided on the label by the manufacturer that the pack had a shelf life of six months from packaging, when stored under cool and dry place, which means that it was safe to consume upto 7.2.2014 but the said pack started showing signs of spoilage like visible fungus of dark green/ brown colour, after a period of about 3 months on its kernels while the pack was intact. The complainant took up the matter with the Opposite Parties, which promptly replied to him vide Exhibits C-3 & C-4. Thereafter, the representative of Opposite Party No.1 approached the complainant with an offer of another pack of freshly packed ground nut, as a part of replacement policy, but he wanted an analysis report of samples of the same, preceding and succeeding batch of groundnuts. As no response was received from the Opposite Parties, the complainant filed the consumer complaint and alleged that the early spoilage of the packet, prior to the best before date, indicates the seriousness of health hazard to the public, as the product label was marked with vague shelf life and no periodic analysis of food products took place in the laboratory. It was further stated that the callous attitude of the Opposite Parties needed to be investigated in the interest of public, as also the high risk involved for the complainant, his family and friends, especially children, for sale of sub-standard and unsafe groundnuts, which were of inferior quality without any preventive care. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant 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.
3. In their written statement, the Opposite Parties, admitted the purchase of one pack of Raw Shelled Ground Nut by the complainant. It was denied that the product sold to the complainant was unfit for human consumption. It was further denied that the food product was sold by the Opposite Parties without any quality check or that the Opposite Parties indulged into any unfair trade practice. It was further stated that admittedly, the product in issue, when sold, did not show any alleged signs of spoilage like visible fungus of dark green/brown colour and the alleged signs, as averred by the complainant, were visible after 3 months of packaging. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties promptly attended to the complaint made by the complainant and offered replacement of the product, without even verifying the genuineness of the complaint. It was further stated that there was a specified storage condition on the product i.e. store in cool and dry place but the complainant was silent on this aspect that the product was stored, as per required conditions. It was further stated that, as per the report received from the Food Analyst, the product was received after the expiry of its best before date, hence no adverse inference could be made against the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainant deliberately and intentionally kept the product in conditions, so as to spoil it for reasons best known to him. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.
4. The Opposite Parties also filed an affidavit of Mr.Jitender, in which, it was stated that the complainant is a habitual litigant and is in the habit of filing complaints against the Companies for extraneous reasons. A list of consumer cases filed by the complainant was given.
5. The complainant did not wish to rebut this evidence and orally admitted the complaints pending before other Courts, after which, arguments were heard.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, as stated above.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
10. The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the main purpose of the appellant to knock the door of the Consumer Forum, was to bring the callous attitude of the respondents/Opposite Parties, who were selling the products, without verifying the proper shelf life of the same and there being no analytical report regarding such product from any laboratory. He further submitted that selling of such products needs to be investigated in the interest of public for the high risk involved to the health of the appellant and his family and friends for supply of substandard and unsafe groundnut, which were of inferior quality. He further submitted that the appellant kept the articles purchased by him in a specified condition, and inspite of this, the same started showing signs of spoilage merely after 3 months, which shows that the product was of low quality and the same was not fit for human consumption. He further submitted that the District Forum allowed the complaint but a very meagre amount of compensation has been awarded and it did not allow the complaint in its totality. He further submitted that a cheque bearing No.884708 dated 19.8.2014, IDBI Bank branch, New Delhi of Rs.2,000/- has been received by the appellant on 23.8.2014 from Future Agrovet Limited. He prayed that the impugned order passed by the District Forum may kindly be modified and the complaint be allowed in its totality.
11. The Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties, denied that the food product was sold by them without any quality check. He submitted that the product in issue, when sold did not show any sign of spoilage like visible fungus of dark green/brown colour and the alleged signs, as averred by the appellant, were visible after 3 months of packaging. He further submitted that respondents properly attended the complaint made by the appellant and offered replacement of the product.
12. The appellant/complainant had also filed an application for analysis of sample of Groundnut-Batch no.10139, along with the complaint, which was opposed by the respondents/Opposite Parties, asserting that the product had already passed the expiry date. The application filed by the appellant/complainant was allowed and the packet was sent for analysis to the Pubic Analyst, Government Laboratory, Sector 11, Chandigarh, to give its report about the fungus in the packet, and whether the groundnut was fit for human consumption. Report dated 10.3.2014 from the Food Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh was received, wherein, it was opined as under:-
OPINION: From examination of the sample herein referred to and the result obtained by analysis, I am of the opinion that the contents of the sample marked here as P-166-Feb 14 are mould affected and having foul smell. Hence unsafe for human consumption.
Moreover, the sample has been received in the laboratory after the expiry of its best before date. Under Section 27(3)(a) of Foods Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Rules & Regulations 2011, the Seller shall be liable for any article of food which is sold after the date of its expiry. Also, complete address of the manufacturer is not visible. Hence, Misbranded also.
It was evident from above analysis that the sample was received in the laboratory, after the expiry of its best before date, but it was opined that the contents of the sample were mould affected, having foul smell and hence unsafe for human consumption.
13. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the expert opinion, though in favour of the appellant, mentioned that the packet was received after the date of expiry. No doubt, the article was not sold after the date of its expiry by the respondents. Even then the respondents had offered to compensate the appellant by giving a replacement. It is important to note that the article ought not have got spoiled before its expiry date. It is further relevant to point out that the appellant had purchased the said packet of groundnut on 06.09.2013 and it had developed fungus/mould, within a period of 3 months, i.e. during the peak winter months. The peak winter months, in our opinion, was very unlikely for such a growth, proving beyond doubt that the said packet was below standard and unfit for human consumption.
14. The compensation should be commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case, mental agony suffered by the consumer and physical harassment caused to him. It should neither be too high nor too meagre. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the District Forum is on the lower side and the same is liable to be enhanced. Thus, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, which in our considered opinion shall meet the ends of justice.
15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the complainant, is partly accepted and the order of the District Forum is modified as under :-
(i) The respondents/Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, are directed to pay a consolidated compensation of Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.2,000/-, awarded by the District Forum.
16. This order be complied with by the respondents within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest @12% per annum, from the date of default, till realisation.
17. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
17.10.2014 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER rb