(PER HONBLE SMT.S.B.BHARGAVI, LADY MEMBER ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND NINETEEN
1. Brief averments of the complaint are as follows: The complainant is working with Opposite Party No.2 and then he had been to the cafeteria of the Opposite Party No.1 where he placed order for Dosa, upon which he noticed some foreign body in the chutney supplied to him which he was taken back with shock and surprise and that this is second time that he had experienced such taste with the Opposite Party No.1 personnel. That this all had happened due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 which failed to take care and caution by covering the utensils with proper covers. Hence this complaint.
2. Upon receiving the notices, the Opposite Party No.1 filed their written version by denying the facts alleged by the complainant. Opposite Party No.1 by stating that he is running the canteen in the premises of building with the aid and accommodation given by the company i.e. Opposite Party No.2 for the benefit of employees working in his company and by admitting that the complainant ordered Dosa at 11.05 p.m. on 09.10.2017 and while taking few bits from Dosa, a live cockroach came suddenly, immediately with evil mind, complainant took photographs of it and made unnecessary scene inspite of serving with fresh Dosa and chutney. The compensation claimed by the complainant in his complaint is abnormal.
3. The Opposite Party No.2 in his written version denies that the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is not maintainable in law, since there is no element of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party No.2. Since complainant himself had mentions in his affidavit that he claims no relief against Opposite Party No.2. Therefore, the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is liable to be dismissed.
4. Proof affidavits filed by complainant and Opposite Party No.1 along with some documents which was got marked as Ex.A1 and CD is marked as M.O.1 on behalf of complainant and no documents were marked on behalf of Opposite Parties. The counsel for complainant and Opposite Party No.2 filed written arguments.
5. Now the points for consideration in this case are:
1) Whether the complainant is a consumer as per C.P.Act, 1986?
2) Whether the Opposite Party No.1 is responsible for any deficiency in service and negligence caused to the complainant?
3) To what relief?
6. Point No.1: As per the contention of the Opposite Parties that the complainant will not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act since to declare any food as an adulterated one, the power lies with the Food and Safety and the Sanitary and Medical Health Department but not with the Consumer Fora. As per Sec.3 of Consumer Protection Act, the complainant can file a complaint in case of any deficiency of service or in case of defective goods. Since this Act is in addition to any other law for the time being in force. Hence he comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. Section 3 of this Act reads as under: The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
7. Point No.2: It is an admitted fact that the complainant is employee of Opposite Party No.2 and working as process developer from January 2015 onwards. The Opposite Party No.2 entrust their cafeteria to the Opposite Party No.1 in their premises to run a canteen to cater the needs of the employees of Opposite Party No.2. As a running process, most of the employees have their lunch, tiffins, etc., at the cafeteria area or hotel. The Opposite Party No.1 is running its caterers at the premises of Opposite Party No.2. It is also an admitted fact that on 09.10.2017 at 11.05 p.m. when the complainant ordered for a Dosa, the same was delivered by the Opposite Party No.1 personnel. After having 3 to 5 bits of Dosa, all of a sudden complainant found cockroach in the chutney. On seeing the same, complainant was taken with a shock and surprise and brought the same to the notice of Opposite Party No.1 for which Opposite Party No.1 replaced the chutney with another. The facts disputed by the Opposite Party No.1 is that the complainant has filed the present case by stating false, concocted and baseless allegations those are imaginary and the compensation sought as Rs.5,00,000/- is not proper. When it is to declare that any food as an adulterated one, the power lies with the Food and Safety Authorities and the Sanitary and the Medical Health Department can take any action in case of non-hygenic maintenance of any place where eatables are cooked or served to consumers but not with the Consumer Fora. The facts disputed by the Opposite Party No.2 is that the complaint is not maintainable in law against Opposite Party No.2 since there is no element of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party No.2. As such the complainant himself has mentioned in his affidavit that he claims no relief against Opposite Party No.2 and moreover Opposite Party No.2 is not in any consumer-service provider transaction, in fact and also as admitted by the complainant that he is an employee of this Opposite Party No.2 and also further contends that the name of the Opposite Party No.2 is concerned, the entity name is Genpact India Private Limited as against Genpact Logistics as mentioned in the complaint. The Opposite Party No.1 filed the third party affidavit of M.Srinivas Reddy. He stated that he is working as a cashier in the canteen premises of Genpact Limited Company for several years. In his affidavit, he states that on 09.10.2017 the complainant ordered Dosa at 11.05 p.m. and he had taken few bites of those and suddenly one live cockroach appeared on the complainants table and I personally witnessed the said incident. By taking the advantage of appearance of live cockroach on his table, the complainant immediately planned to extract the money from the management of canteen he took photographs of that live cockroach which was not in the chutney nor in the Dosa. Coming to the factum of production of bill. As per the allegation of Opposite Party No.1 that without which this complaint cannot be maintainable. Opposite Party No.1 in their written version had admitted that complainant came to their canteen and ordered for Dosa after taking two to three bites, he noticed that there was a foreign body in the chutney, immediately after complaining by the complainant about the said incident the Opposite Party No.1 replaced the said chutney, itself is showing that there was an incident taken place as alleged by the complainant. The question of procuring any bills or filing any bill as evidence does not arise at all. By perusing the CD (M.O.1) and photographs (Ex.A1), it came to know that admittedly there was cockroach found in the chutney supplied by Opposite Party No.1 for which Opposite Party No.1 filed a third party affidavit of one of their employees namely M.Srinivas Reddy by stating that cockroach came beneath the table but not from the chutney which itself is proving the contention of the complainant that the canteen is not being maintained in healthy, hygienic and congenial atmosphere. Itself shows that ignorance of lack of facilities to maintain the food quality as such not covering the food items with proper covers, the said incident was taken place. The caterers are expected to maintain good healthy and hygienic conditions towards the said customers but which was not taken place. Hence there is a deficiency of service proved against Opposite Party No.1 by supplying of an adulterated food to the complainant which caused him mental agony and he experienced vomiting sensation and could not take food in regular for few days which is admissible, generally it will happen. So the claim against Opposite Party No.2 is dismissed since in his affidavit, the complainant himself stated that he made Opposite Party No.2 as a party in a routine process since there is no relief or claim against Opposite Party No.2, as such the claim against Opposite Party No.2 is dismissed.
8. Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the Opposite Party No.1 to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation towards deficiency of service and for causing mental agony. The Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). The claim against Opposite Party No.2 is dismissed since it is a proforma party. Time for compliance is 30 days. Dictated to the Steno-typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of August, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED For Complainant For Opposite Parties Affidavit filed OP-1 filed Affidavit EXHIBITS MARKED For Complainant Ex.A1 Copy of Photos M.O.1 CD Exhibits marked for the Opposite Parties Sd/- Sd/- LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT