KARNICA Vs. HARRI HYPERSTORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 18.9.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 263 of 2009.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 18.2.2009 the complainant had purchased various items from Harri Hyperstore, SCO No. 38, Madhya Marg, Sector 26, Chandigarh vide receipt No.CS -30042, of which one of the item was Tiffany Orange Cream Wafer. On 22.2.2009 the complainant opened Tiffany Orange Cream Wafer to have it as a light snack with tea. She consumed one wafer and while consuming the second wafer, she found some peculiar rubbery semi sold substance in her mouth along with the wafer. When she checked the wafer, which she was holding in her hand, she was shocked to have found that it contained a rubber band of which she had consumed a considerable part in her earlier bite. After sometime the complainant started feeling dizzy and vomited thrice. She felt uncomfortable with persistent diarrhea and started to panic. She was rushed to Sector 16 General Hospital Emergency Ward, where after thorough check up she was given medical treatment for vomiting, diarrhea and allergy. It was submitted by the complainant that the said wafer is adulterated and contains a rubber band which was contaminated and severely injurious to health thus making it utmost unfit for human consumption. The Tiffany, Orange Cream Wafer is a imported product manufactured by Serville Products Limited, an IFFCO Group Company, Dubai. It was further submitted that neither the name nor the complete address of the importer of the said product was mentioned on the label, which was mandatory as per Section 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The above said act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

(3.) REPLY was filed by OP No. 1 and admitted that the bill Annexure C -1 was issued by it and the various products were also sold to the complainant but it was denied that these products were purchased by the complainant herself. It was also denied that the wafer purchased by the complainant from the shop of OP No. 1 contained any rubbery semi solid substance and also denied that the alleged feeling of dizziness and vomiting was due to the consumption of wafer. It was pleaded by the OP No. 1 that the complainant did not opt for any chemical examination of the wafer from the laboratory. Without analysis of the wafers, the complainant had come to the conclusion that it contained rubber band and its consumption was dangerous. All other allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint were controverted and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.