Deficiency in service determined on basis of evidence linking illness to product consumed; burden of proof on consumer.

1. The appellants herein / Opposite Parties before the District Forum challenge the Order, dated 16.11.2016, passed by the DCDRF, Chennai - North, in C.C. No.124 of 2013, whereby, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant / 1st respondent herein against the appellant in F.A. No. 97 of 2017/2nd OP as well as the appellant in FA. No. 235 of 2017/1st OP, by directing them to jointly pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation to the complainant for mental agony and another sum of Rs. 5,000 towards litigation expenses.

2. Inasmuch as, in both these appeals, challenge is made to the same impugned order and the issues involved therein being one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order. 4

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this order as per their respective rankings before the District Forum.

4. In brief, the case of the complainant, as reflected in the complaint filed before the District Forum, is as follows: -
The 1st OP is running a shop in the name and style of ‘Nilgiris Supermarket” and the 2nd OP is the controlling authority over the 1st OP. On 13.12.2012, the complainant had purchased some food products including NILG SD ALOO BHUJIA 100 gms. MIXTURE and NILG JELLY BITES DIAMOND from the 1st OP shop for Rs. 331. On 17.12.2012, after consuming the Mixture and Jelly Bites, the complainant and his family members developed vomiting and stomach pain, whereupon, he verified both the product packs to find the date of package as 1.10.2012 and 29.9.2012 respectively with the indication in the expiry clause ‘BEST BEFORE SIXTY DAYS FROM PACKAGING’. After realizing that the sudden physical change in the body was due to the consumption of the expired contents, they rushed to a Hospital, where they received treatment for 1 day as in - patient and spent a sum of Rs. 12,000 and above towards hospital and medical expenses and also, the complainant was not able to attend Office for 3 days and the children could not attend school for two days. While so, after discharge from the Hospital, when the complainant approached the 1st OP and, by explaining the consequences faced by him in consuming the expired products, asked him to replace the other expired product and to compensate for the loss suffered by him, the 1st OP behaved indecently without maintaining the customer - friendly relationship.
The 1st OP is a franchisee doing business under the supervision and control of the 2nd OP and both of them have a social obligation to supply goods to the customers free from expired goods with good packaging. The 2nd OP is also duty bound to verify the correctness of the products sold by the retailers in the market free from expiry. Both the OPs, due to the failure in adhering to such procedure in dealing with customers, violated the rules and regulations stipulated under law. The complainant not only suffered mental agony and physical strain and also incurred loss by spending Rs. 12,000 and above for medical expenses and sustained loss of pay for Rs.3,000, since he could not attend work for 3 days. When a legal notice, dated 22.12.2012, was sent, calling upon the OPs to pay Rs. 12,000 and Rs. 3,000, the 1st OP sent a vague reply while the 2nd OP neither replied nor came forward to comply with the claim. Hence, he filed the complaint, seeking the District Forum to direct the OPs to pay him Rs. 12,000 incurred towards medical expenses, Rs. 3,000 towards loss of pay, and Rs. 4,50,000 towards deficiency of service and mental agony caused to him.

5. The 1st OP filed a written version, inter alia, stating that they are the franchisee of the 2nd OP; that they are not