ORDER:-
DELIVERED BY THIRU A.S. RATHINASAMY, MEMBER-I:-
This complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with the plea to direct the Opposite Party to refund a sum of Rs.30/- towards the value of the bread and also to impose a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 and other relevant Acts and to restrain the Opposite Party permanently from selling the food pockets without labels and also to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- for causing mental agony and also to direct him to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Brief averments in the complaint:-
2).That on 26.06.2019, the complainant purchased a sweet bread from the respondent for a sum of Rs.30/-. Though there were printings in the polythene paper, it was packed without the label showing other particulars. Further, the bread was found as old and spoiled one and the columns in the label were not fully filled in. When the petitioner asked about the absence of particulars in the label, he told him that they are selling so in the Chennai too. The act of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency of service under Section 2(i) and (f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3).Further, as per Weights and Measurement Act, 1976 and Weights and Measurement Rules 1977, the particulars of name, address, net weight, date of manufacturing, date, month and year of packing should have been mentioned in the pack. Apart from it, the MRP rate and also Badge Number should be mentioned. Further as per Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Rule 27(2) of Food Safety
Page 3 of 7
and Standards Rules, 2011, sticking of the label is compulsory. Any breach of the above Rules is liable to be fined. The Opposite Party has been selling the food articles without providing such particulars and hence he is liable to be imposed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as fine. Hence, it is prayed to grant the relief as it is prayed for in the complaint.
Brief averments in the written version:-
4).The complaint is false and it is filed with mala fide intention. The complaint is not sustainable either in law or on facts and he has to prove the same. The contention of the complainant that he purchased the bread on 26.06.2019 in the shop of the Opposite Party is false.
5).The allegation that the polythene paper, though contained printings, it was packed without label is denied as false. In fact, the polythene container of the bread contained required particulars such as name of manufacturer and his address, date of manufacturing, date of expiry, raw materials used, details of nutrition and batch number.
6).The allegation that bread was found as old and in damaged condition is not correct. Even the bread pocket is touched, one can feel whether it is old and in damaged condition. So, it is submitted that the complainant has put forward a false case. It is also denied as false that the Opposite Party informed the complainant that they have sold the bread in Chennai also as it is sold in his shop at Namakkal and further allegation that it amounts to deficiency of service is not correct. The Opposite Party has complied with the trade practice as per law. So, the complainant is not entitled for the relief sought in the complaint. 7).In fact, on 26.06.2019, the complainant came to the shop of the Opposite Party and purchased bread and a bill was issued to him as requested by him.
Page 4 of 7
Thereafter, the complainant entered inside the shop under guise of checking the eatables and caused damage and when he was warned not to do so, the complainant picked up verbal spat with the Opposite Party and then he filed this complaint in order to get publicity and frontline and there was no truth in the complaint. 8).The complainant has not produced the bread pocket before this Commission and further if the complainant is aggrieved with the expiry of the bread pocket, he could have lodged complaint before the appropriate Commission. Failure to do so leads to presumption that the complaint is false. This complaint is filed by the complainant only to retaliate the Opposite Party for the occurrence taken place in his shop. It is therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs. 9).The points for consideration in this case are as follows:-
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as he prayed for in this complaint?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party towards the complainant?
3. To what other reliefs the complainant is entitled?
10).On the side of the Complainant, his proof affidavit is filed and recorded and Ex.A1 and MO.1 are marked and on the side of the Opposite Party proof affidavit of the Proprietor is filed and recorded and no Exhibit is marked on his side. 11).Heard both sides and perused the records.
POINT NO.2:
12). It is the contention of the Complainant that he had purchased a sweet bread from the Opposite Party on 26.06.2019 for Rs.30/- as per Ex.A1 and the same was packed without required details as per MO.1 and the bread inside the cover is also
Page 5 of 7
in a spoiled condition and the same can't be consumed and he enquired about the deterioration in the product from the Opposite Party and he replied that even in Chennai the bread items were sold as like the Opposite Party and the bread sold by the Opposite Party is a defective good by virtue of Section 2(i)(f) of Consumer Protection Act,1986 and hence this Complaint.
13). In the written version filed by the Opposite Party, it is admitted that on 26.06.2019, the Complainant purchased a sweet bread for Rs.30/- from the Opposite Party and denied that the bread pocket produced before this Commission is not the one which was not purchased from the Opposite Party and the Complainant prepared the same by his own for litigation purpose and the Complainant has not taken any steps to prove the defect in the bread through Laboratory test However the alleged bread pocket is marked as MO.1 without objection on 03.01.2020 on the side of the Complainant.
14). On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is the duty of the Complainant to prove whether the quality of the bread he purchased was a defective one as per Sec.2(i)(f) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 which is also at Par with the sections 84 and 86 f Consumer protection Act, 2019.But he failed to do so.Hence, this Commission is of the view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party in this regard.
15). On perusal of records, it is found that there is no details about the sweet bread purchased by the Complainant from the opposite Party in Ex,A1 but at the same time it is marked without objection by the Opposite Party and also the contention of the Complainant is admitted by the Opposite Party regarding the purchase of the Sweet bread for Rs.30/- on 26.06.2019 from him which carries no details about price, date of manufacturing and packing, expiry date etc.,.The same is offence
Page 6 of 7
under Sec 27 (2) of Food Safety And Standards Act 2006 and The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is also not prejudice to the above Act. Hence this Commission is of the view that by virtue of Sections 100 and 101 of Consumer Protection Act,2019,there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.This point is answered accordingly.
POINT NO.1:
16). In view of the findings given in point no 2,it is held that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party towards the Complainant, for the failure to print the details of price, manufacturing and expiry dates etc., on the top of the bread pocket. Hence this Commission is of the view that the Opposite Party is liable to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- with an interest at the rate of 9% p.a to the Complainant for the mental agony caused by him due to the deficiency of service and a sum of Rs.30/- towards the purchase price of the sweet bread and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses and in other respects the Complaint is liable to be dismissed. This point is answered accordingly.
POINT NO.3:
17). In view of the findings given in point nos,1 and 2,it is held that the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief and this point is answered accordingly.
In the result, the Complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/-to the Complainant for the mental agony caused by him due to the deficiency of service with an interest at the rate of 9 % p.a from 12.07.2019 on which date the Complaint was taken on file till the date of realization and a sum of Rs.30/- towards the purchase price of the sweet bread and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of
Page 7 of 7
litigation which carries no interest within one month from the date of this order and in other respects the Complaint is dismissed and the MO.1 is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal time is over and there be any appeal after the disposal of the appeal.
Dictated to the Steno-typist, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in open Court on this 20th day of June 2023.
-Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-I , PRESIDENT,
DCDRC,NAMAKKAL DCDRC,NAMAKKAL
LIST OF WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS
COMPLAINANT'S SIDE WITNESS:
K.Subbarayan - Complainant-Proof affidavit is recorded
COMPLAINANT'S SIDE EXHIBITS:
Ex.A1 ----- Receipt issued by the Opposite Party
Original
OPPOSITE PARTY'S SIDE WITNESS:
Sathyavan - Opposite Party, Proof affidavit is recorded
OPPOSITE PARTY'S SIDE EXHIBITS: NIL -Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER -I PRESIDENT
DCDRC,NAMAKKAL DCDRC,NAMAKKAL