Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President;
Mr. S. Kulwant Singh, Member
TARUN AGGARWAL—Complainant
versus
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN TOBACCO CO. LTD.
& OTHERS—Opposite Parties
Complaint Case No. 78 of 1992 — Decided on 5.5.1993
For the Complainant :Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate.
For the Opp. Parties :Mrs. Alka Sarin, Mr. Hemant Sarin, Mr. A.S. Virk & Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocates.
A consumer complaint alleging contamination of a product must be supported by sufficient evidence to establish that the complainant consumed the contaminated product and that his illness was caused by the product.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTIONS 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g) - COMPLAINT AGAINST CONTAMINATED MUSTARD OIL - DISMISSED - NO LIABILITY OF OFFICIALS OF MANUFACTURER COMPANY - NO EVIDENCE OF CONSUMPTION OF CONTAMINATED OIL - NO PROOF OF CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN ALLEGED ILLNESS AND CONSUMPTION OF OIL - COMPLAINT HELD TO BE VEXATIOUS LITIGATION.
Fact of the Case:
A consumer filed a complaint against the manufacturer and retailers of mustard oil, alleging that he had purchased a bottle of oil containing a fly and that he had suffered abdominal pain as a result of consuming the oil. The complainant sought compensation of Rs. 2,13,500/-.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint was vexatious litigation and dismissed it. The court held that there was no evidence that the complainant had consumed the contaminated oil or that his illness was caused by the oil. The court also found that the complainant had failed to implead the manufacturer of the oil as a necessary party to the complaint.
Issues: 1. Whether the officials of the manufacturer company were personally liable for the alleged contamination of the mustard oil? 2. Whether the complainant had provided sufficient evidence to establish that he had consumed the contaminated oil and that his illness was caused by the oil? 3. Whether the complaint was vexatious litigation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the officials of the manufacturer company were not personally liable for the alleged contamination of the mustard oil because there was no evidence that they were involved in the production or packaging of the oil. 2. The court held that the complainant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that he had consumed the contaminated oil or that his illness was caused by the oil. The court noted that the complainant had not even consumed the contaminated bottle of oil and that his medical opinion did not establish a causal link between his illness and the consumption of the oil. 3. The court held that the complaint was vexatious litigation because the complainant had failed to provide any evidence to support his claims and had inflated his claim for compensation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint and declined to impose penal costs on the complainant.
Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President—At the very threshold this complaint stands virtually concluded against the complainant by the recent binding observations of the National Commission in I (1993) CPJ 45 (NC) ‘Anup Kumar @ Kailash Sharma v. S.M. Kanwar & Others’. Perhaps all that survives is that whether the complainant should be mulcated with penal costs as in the said case.
2. In view of the above and for the limited purpose of disposing of the preliminary objections, it is unnecessary to delve too deeply into the facts. The complainant is a practicing advocate at Chandigarh and the somewhat curious case set up is that a bottle of real Gold Super-refined Mustard Oil was Purchased by him on the 18th of December, 1991 from Deepak Departmental Store for Rs. 44/- vide bill No. 941 which contained a fly which could be seen by a naked eye. It is then vaguely alleged that the complainant has been a consumer of the product ‘Super refined Mustard Oil’ manufactured by M/s. Indian Tobacco Co. Ltd.. and sold in retail by opposite parties No. 4 and 5. It is then the case that for the past few months the complainant had not been keeping good health and has been suffering from abdominal pain and the medical opinion was that it could be due to some contaminated food stuff like mustard oil. The specific medical opinion of Dr. B.R. Verma vide C-1 however, is in the following terms :
The trouble (abdominal problem) could be due to abdominal infection or due to some dietetic infection.
3. It is also the case that after recovering from abdominal infection, the complainant served a notice on the Indian Tobacco Company Limited and its officials and retailers on the 24th of June, 1992, but no satisfactory reply or explanation was offered by the opposite parties. Consequently, the complaint was filed seeking a direction that the further production of the mustard oil by the present machine lying in the factory of the I.T.C. may be ordered to be stopped and that the bottle containing the fly/insect in possession of the complainant maybe ordered to be examined by an independent agency (on the 11th of January, 1993 the complainant produced before this Commission a sealed bottle of real Gold Super-refined Mustard Oil for safe custody). A tall claim of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,13,500/- was raised.
4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the opposite parties, a number of preliminary objections have been raised which have been strenuously pressed at the very threshold. It is first glaringly pointed out that the Indian Tobacco Company Ltd. has not been impleaded at a 11 as an opposite party and obviously the Managing Director or the Sales Manager or other officials of the said Company can in no way be personally held responsible. Significantly, it is averred that the complaint is wholly belated having been curiously filed after a year of the alleged purchase of the bottle of Mustard Oil on the 18th of December, 1991. What is next highlighted is the admitted fact that the alleged contaminated bottle of Mustard Oil had admittedly not been consumed by the complainant and all allegations of abdominal pain etc. are consequently purely conjectural. It is then pointedly raised that the complainant has not cared even to locate the batch number, the date of manufacture or the other relevant details for his tall claim that the massive commercial production of the Mustard Oil by the opposite parties be halted in its tracks. The pleas of non-jointer of the particular manufacturing concern of Asha Refinery Private Limited has also been raised.
5. On merits the opposite parties No. 4 and 5 have taken up the plea that infact the complainant was asking for a ransom amount of Rs. 50,000/- and wanted to black-mail them in the event of the failure to pay the amount. It was the case that the aforesaid figure was named as the price for the return of the bottle containing the insect and meanwhile evidence of ill health was fabricated to support the case.
6. O
