Failure to follow the prescribed procedure for analysis or test of goods under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and failure to produce sufficient expert evidence to establish the defect resulted in the dismissal of the appeal.

Mr. Jasbir Singh, Member—This appeal has been filed by the complainant - Sh. N.S. Gill, against the order dated 2nd July, 1999 passed by the District Forum Ludhiana in Complaint No. 864 of 1998, whereby the complaint was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. According to the pleadings of the complainant, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are supplier of Rice Bran and opposite party No. 3 is manufacturer of De-oil Cakes, Rice Bran, Paddy Husk, Bardana etc. All such types of rice bran and oil manufactured by the opposite party are used for feeding the fish. The complainant on 29.6.1998 approaching the opposite party No. 1 for the purchase of Rice Bran D.O.C. He purchased rice bran worth Rs. 9,578/-, Rs. 10,007/- and Rs. 9,389/- through bills dated 29.6.1998 and 30.6.1998 for the use of the fish. The complainant for his satisfaction got the chemical examination of the rice bran done from Bali Laboratory, Kamla Nehru Market, Near Railway Station on 1.7.1998 and as per report the Rice Bran D.O.C. contained 380 PPB which as according to the complainant is highly intoxicant and injurious to fish and can result in mortality. He used the rice bran from 29.6.1998 to 4.7.1998. He contacted the opposite party on 6.7.1998 who assured that the rice bran would be replaced after the new paddy crop. As per pleadings, the complainant after the arrival of the new paddy crop in September and October, 1998 again contacted the opposite party but the opposite party refused to take back the delivery and replaced the rice bran. Hence, he filed a complaint before the District Forum.

3. The opposite party filed written version and asserted that the disputed transaction was a commercial transaction. If there was any defect, the complainant should have made request before the District Forum for analysis and laboratory of Rice Bran D.O.C. under the prescribed procedure, but the complainant did not get test done through the District Forum.

4. To prove their versions both the parties filed affidavits and documents by way of evidence. The District Forum after considering the merits and documents on record passed the impugned order.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respondent and Mr. N.S. Gill, the appellant in person.

6. There is no dispute regarding the purchase of rice bran. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellant before the District Forum ever alleged that the use of rice bran caused him any loss. The appellant before the District Forum has not led any expert evidence to show that the rice bran containing 380 PPB is highly intoxicant and injurious to fish and can result in mortality. The complainant on his own got the rice bran tested from a private laboratory i.e. Bali Laboratories (Regd.) Govt. approved Test House, 84-85, 1st Floor, Kamla Nehru Market, Near Railway Station, Ludhiana (Ex. C-5). The result as recorded by the Bali Laboratories (Regd.) are as under :

“AFLATOXIN B1

380 PPB

Calrofic Value/Energy

-

F.F.A. (as Oleic Acid)

-

Protein (Nx6.25) as it is basis

(Dry Basis)

20.10%

Oil (as it is Basis)

-

Moisture and Volatile Matter

-

Sand/Silica (Acid insoluble

Ash)

-

Crude Fiber

-

Salt (as NaCl)

-”

7. The above report does not show that the rice bran containing 380 PPB is highly intoxicant and injurious to fish and can result in mortality. What was expected of the complainant after he found the Rice Bran defective he should have made a request before the District Forum under Section 13(1)(c) for proper analysis or test of the goods. The District Forum according to procedure might to have obtained a sample of the goods from the complainant, sealed it and authenticated it in the manner prescribed and referred the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory should make an analysis or test, whichever was necessary with a view to finding out whether such goods suffered from any defect alleged in the findings thereon to the District Forum within the stipulated period. But no suc