The onus of proof lies on the complainant to demonstrate negligence and product defect, which was not established as per procedural requirements.

ORDER

1. The Appeal questions the correctness of the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai on 09.06.2014 in Original Petition No. 24 of 2004. The Complaint had been instituted by the Consumer Association of India along with the actual consumer Mr. Jagan Nathan Vamanan arrayed as Complainant No.-2. The allegation made was that the Complainant No.-2, who is Respondent No.-2 in this Appeal, had consumed Dates after purchasing it from the Appellant No.-2 store at Chennai where he was a regular customer. The said dates were described as “Persepolis masafatl wet dates”. According to the Complainant the same had been purchased from the Appellant No.-2 store on 08.04.2003. He consumed 8 – 10 pieces of the dates on 14.05.2003 that resulted in a severe stomach pain and problem of gastritis. Feeling difficulty in breathing he was admitted as alleged at the Apollo Hospital, Chennai and had to remain hospitalised from 14.05.2003 to 16.05.2003. The doctors as alleged diagnosed erosive gastritis and consequently something described as “abdominal gastrocy” had to be performed.

2. The Complainant states that he realised that this might have happened due to consumption of dates but in Paragraph No.-7 of the Complaint he alleges that the complications might have arisen only because of dates and that was the only food from outside consumed by him. As a result of hospitalisation he had to undertake substantial expenditure and while pondering as to the reason of his sudden illness, he discovered that the pack of the dates purchased by him had an expiry date mentioned as February 2002 that was embossed in German language. The dates had been imported from a German Firm by the respondent no. 3, Importer at Chennai, M/s. Pacificphyto Products Pvt. Ltd., Chennai and supplied by M/s. R. B. Traders, Tanjore (Supplier), respondent no. 4. The endorsement about the shelf life was engraved in German language. The Complainant also alleges in Paragraph No. – 8 of the Complaint that since he had his professional training at Siemens in Germany in 1993 – 94, therefore he could speak, read and write the German language.

3. The Complainant further alleged that the Opposite Parties had pasted a new label of shelf life of April 2004, thereby suppressing the original date of expiry which was a deceptive act adopted only to sell off the dates the consumption whereof was completely out-dated. It was alleged that but for his knowledge of the German language the discovery of the fact could not have been made. The Complainant has referred to the endorsement in the German language and its translation in para 9 of the complaint which is reproduced hereinunder:

“MINDESTENS HALTBAR BIS FEBRUARY 2002 meaning thereby “Minimum retention upto February 2002.”

4. The Complainant then alleged that when a complaint was made to the appellant no. 2, the matter was reported to the Appellant No.-1 who merely tried to shift the responsibility on the merchants from whom the dates had been procured by the Appellants and who were the importers and suppliers of the dates. This letter dated 30.05.2003 has been placed on record as Annexure – 1.

5. It is then alleged that the Public Analyst of the Health Department, Corporation of Chennai was approached along with a sample of the wet dates by the trustee of the Complainant No.-1 Consumer Association, one Mr. R. Desikan. The report from there tendered on 25.06.2003 stated that the “sample contained live insects”, the presence whereof affected the nature and purity of the sample, and since the same was a product indicated as per the