Narasingha Choudhury vs Neelakantham Departmental Store

THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 9.3.2009 of the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (in short, ''the State Commission''). By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant (petitioner herein) at the admission stage.

THE petitioner was the complainant before the Koraput District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jeypore (in short, ''the District Forum'') with the allegation against the opposite parties that though he purchased a packet of Gutka from opposite party (OP) 1 on 28.8.2008, the manufacturing date on the packet was printed as 9/2008. Therefore, he felt that the product was too old because it could not have been manufactured in September, 2008 when he had actually purchased it in August, 2008. In view of the defect in the product labelling, he prayed for compensation of Rs. 50,000 from the opposite parties. On consideration of the pleadings, evidence and documents brought on record by the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that according to Proviso (B) to Rule 6(1) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, it was permissible for the manufacturer of Gutka to have used the packaging material intended to be used in September, 2008 for packaging Gutka manufactured in August, 2008. The complainant appealed against this order of the District Forum before the State Commission, with the result mentioned above.

WHILE filing this revision petition, the petitioner/complainant also requested this Commission for legal aid. Accordingly, this Commission appointed Ms. Surekha Raman, Advocate as Amicus Curiae to assist with the case of the petitioner.

AFTER hearing the Amicus Curiae and going through Proviso (B) to Rule 6(1) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, it is quite clear that it was permissible for the manufacturer of the Gutka to have used the packaging material labelled for September, 2008 for packaging Gutka manufactured in August, 2008 if the packaging material for August, 2008 had been exhausted before the end of that month. This is clear from the words: "....... and, where any such packaging material is exhausted before the expiry of the month indicated thereon, the packaging material intended to be used during the next succeeding month may be used for pre-packing the concerned commodity."

IN view of the foregoing, the impugned order of the State Commission needs no interference under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

THE assistance rendered by Ms. Raman is acknowledged with thanks. She may be disbursed Rs. 2,500 towards the balance reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses. Revision Petition dismissed.