CHANDER MOHAN KAURA Vs. MERCK INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling dissatisfied with the dismissal of the complaint by District Forum, Patiala vide order dated March 18,1997, the complainant Chander Mohan Kaura is in appeal. The grouse was simple. The complainant purchased three strips containing ten capsules each for Rs.73.75 of medicine Evion 400 from the Chemist M/s. Relu Ram and Sons, Patiala, opposite party No.2. Later he found that one of the strips contained only 9 capsules. He came back to the shop and pointed this fact to the Chemist, who readily offered to exchange the strip. The complainant did not agree and ultimately filed the complaint before the District Forum claiming Rs.60,000/- as compensation against the manufacturer of the medicine, opposite party No.1 - M/s. Merck India Ltd. as well as the Chemist, opposite party No.2. The grouse is two fold. Firstly that even if there was fault in the machine vide which strips were packed, this resulted in unlawful enrichment of the manufacturer of the medicines as thousands of strips prepared by a particular machine with such defect would have packed only nine capsules in each strip. Secondly, since there was defect in the machine, this could also result in production of spurious drug not having the requisite constituents. The complainant had been using the aforesaid medicines for so many years without any relief. Thus, he suffered loss.

(2.) The opposite party contested the complaint. The sale of the medicines however, was admitted by the Chemist. Both the parties produced their evidence on affidavits and documents on the basis of which the impugned order was passed. The complainant had produced the receipt vide which the capsules were purchased.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant did not put in appearance and we have heard Counsel for opposite party No.2. We have gone through the grounds of appeal submitted by the complainant. We find no merit in this appeal. At the outset, it may be stated that when the Chemist has charged for 10 capsules in a strip in fact when 9 only were found, the Chemist was either to refund the excess amount charged or give one more capsule i. e. by replacement of the strip containing 10 capsules. This was factually done in the present case and the FORA established under the Act after finding deficiency in rendering service would have ordered one of the alternatives referred to above. It is the case of the complainant himself that the Chemist had offered to replace the strip. Thus at the most, even at this stage the only relief that can be granted to the complainant with respect to charging for a capsule, which was not supplied would be to direct the Chemist to pay Rs.2.40 price of the capsule. No further compensation on that account is payable as such an offer was made by the Chemist on the day the medicine was purchased. In the alternative, a direction could be to give one more capsule of that very make to the complainant. Thus it is left to the complainant to either accept Rs.2.40 or a capsule of Evion 400 from opposite party No.2.