AMRUTANJAN LIMITED Vs. JOYPRAKASH PANIGRAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party No.1 of Co. Case No.4 of 2003 has filed this appeal against the complainant and two other opposite parties challenging the orders dated 31.5.2004 of the District Forum, Sonepur directing him and opposite party No.2/respondent No.2 jointly and severally, to pay to the complainant compensation of rupees 1 (one) lakh which will carry interest @12% per annum from the date of order till realization.

(2.) The facts in brief out of which this appeal arises is that the opposite party No.1 / appellant is the manufacturer of pain balm in the brand name "amrutanjan". Respondent No.2 is the proprietor and opposite party No.3 /respondent No.3, is a retail dealer of Amrutanjan of appellant. The case of the complainant is that as he was suffering from headache, he purchased two pouches of Amrutanjan each worth Rs.2 from respondent No.3 for use on 19.12.2002. But, unfortunately, instead of containing Amrutanjan one out of the two pouches contained two pieces of plastic. The complainant having complained about the same, respondent No.3 replaced the defective pouch with another pouch containing Amrutanjan. Respondent No.3 informed the complainant that very often pouches containing no Amrutanjan are being supplied to him and there is no response from the appellant and respondent No.2 when complained. The complainant, who is an Advocate by profession and a social worker being a number of AYESA, suffered from mental agony and was tortured due to this. He also felt that the poor genuine consumers would have been deprived of getting such medicine due to supply of this type of fake pouches manufactured and supplied by the appellant and respondent No.2. Hence the complaint was filed by the complainant / respondent No.1 to prohibit opposite parties from supplying empty pouches of Amrutanjan, to pay Rupees 2.5 lakh as compensation to him for torture and harassment and Rs.2 lakh as compensation to him and to the society and general public as a whole towards mental injury and agony.

(3.) The opposite party No.3 did not file written version and was set ex parte as he did not contest the C. D. Case. opposite party Nos. l and 2 had filed written version resisting to the allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as per the complaint petition. They denied to have manufactured and supplied empty pouches to opposite party No.3. However, according to them, as opposite party No.3 has replaced the empty pouch to the complainant, no deficiency in service has been caused to him.