Punjab Milkfed vs Rajinder K.Singla

PUNJAB Milkfed & others (hereinafter referred to as the ''Petitioner'') have filed this revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ''State Commission'') in Appeal No.508/2007 which was decided in favour of Dr.Rajinder K.Singla, Respondent herein.

IN his complaint before the District forum, Respondent had stated that on 28.10.2002 he had purchased a 500 ml. of Verka Shakti Milk pouch marketed by the Petitioner/Federation. Being suspicious about the weight of the pouch, Respondent got it weighed from the market and found that it weighed 360 ml. whereas in the pouch it was stated that the weight was 500 ml. He, therefore, contacted the Petitioner/Federation and complained to them about their milk pouch being underweight but the Petitioner/Federation did not pay much heed and Respondent, therefore, approached the Controller, Weights & Measures, Chandigarh who weighed the pouch in the presence of the Respondent as well as the representative of the Petitioner and found that it weighed 360 ml. only instead of 500 ml. Respondent, therefore, filed a complaint on grounds of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice before the District Forum and requested that Petitioner be directed to pay the Respondent, Rs.4 lakhs towards compensation for deficiency in service, Rs.40,000/ - for mental agony and harassment with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.5,500/ - as litigation costs.

THE above allegations were denied by the Petitioner who stated that automatic machines had been installed by the Petitioner/Federation for packaging the milk to ensure that these are properly done as per the specifications noted in the packets. In the instant case, it appears that the sealing of the milk pouch in question was tampered with and was not of Petitioner''s plant since it was slanted and the sealing done in the Petitioner''s plant is always straight. Further, Respondent has not been able to give details regarding the address from where the alleged underweight milk pouch was purchased or the name of the shopkeeper as also other details.

THE District Forum after hearing both parties dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the Respondent has not been able to lead any evidence to show as to who was the distributor, wholesaler and retailer of the pouch in question. THE relevant part of the order of the District Forum is reproduced: ''Further, the complainant has led any evidence to show as to who was the distributor, wholesaler and retailer of the pouch of Verka milk in question. He has also not led any evidence as to whether the pouch of Verka milk in question was directly marketed by the OPs. So far want of this sort of evidence, the complainant has not been able to link up the alleged purchase of pouch of milk in question by him on 28.10.2003 with the manufacturing of the contents of the said pouch or marketing thereof by the OPs.

STILL further in the case in hand the complainant besides claiming payment of Rs.40,000/ - as compensation for harassment etc. is also claiming Rs.4 lacs as compensation for the alleged gross deficiency in service on part of the OPs. In the judgment in the case of I(1992) CPJ 300 '' P.A.Puran Vs. Mc Dowell & Co. and Ors., the Hon''ble National Commission has held that even if the case of the complainant regarding existence of some foreign material in the bottle of soda is assumed to be true, it was unable to find out the basis on which the complainant had claimed such a high amount of compensation. So keeping in view of the observations of the Hon''ble National Commission and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the complaint on this ground also merits dismissal.''

AGGRIEVED by this, Respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission which allowed the same. The relevant part of the order of the State Commission reads as follows: ''It hardly matters as to whether appellant/complainant had not given proper residential address or house where he resided with on Jaswant Singh Rana is at far a distance of 5 Kms. from Sector 42 from where he purchased milk pouch. The fact remains that he had purchased the milk pouch. He had approached the officials of Weights & Measures Department. He had given application dated 31.10.2003 to Controller, Weights & Measures, U.T. Chandigarh, whose copy is annexure C -2 in which he had mentioned his address to be House No.1121, Section -42 -B, Chandigarh and he had purchased milk pouch from Attawa, Sector -42, Chandigarh i.e. from the same sector. A perusal of photocopy of the inspection report of officials of weights & measure Annexure C -3 dated 4.11.2003 shows that officials of weights & measures had weighed the contents of pouch in the presence of appellant as well as officials of respondents. The pouch was of Verka Shakti milk weighing 500 ml. Sh.Harinder Singh representative of respondent was present there. He checked the poly film as well as printing of pouch of Verka Milk plant S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali but he stated that sealing was not of plant M/cs because sealing was slanted while the sealing by the plant was straight. Hence, sealing had been tampered with. This was version of Sh.Harinder Singh. The official of Weights & Measures did not give any comments. On weighing, it was found to be 360 ml. At that time another pouch was also weighed which was of 500 ml containing the brand of Verka Smart milk and on weighing it was found to be 35=85 ml. The empty pouches were duly signed by the appellant as well as representative of respondents. This report is dated 4.11.2003.

A perusal of the photocopy of the receipt dated 15.01.2004 shows that Weights & Measures -cum -Legal Metrology had issued receipt bearing No.22998 dated 15.01.2004 to the Ropar District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd., Milk Plant, Mohali for having compounded the offence on 15.01.2005 for the deficiency found on 04.11.2003 and had deposited Rs.15000/ - as compounding fee. Another sum of Rs.15000/ - was also deposited on 15.2.2004 vide receipt bearing No.22997 with respect of complaint dated 24.10.2003 as same was compounded vide order dated 15.2.2004. This is relating to another pouch which on weighment was found to be only 385 ml containing Verka Smart brand milk. The very fact that the Ropar District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd., Milk Plant, Mohali had compounded the offence shows that respondent had accepted that both pouches were short in weight. Thus, deficiency in service is writ large on the fact of compounding the offence.''

THE State Commission also did not give any credence to the statement of the Petitioner that since the plant was fully automated, there was no chance of any pouch containing milk manufactured being underweight by observing as follows: "If the officials putting milk in pouches are dishonest and they cause fluctuation in electricity current or stop electricity for one minute even then production of filling up pouches during that period would be affected and pouches would be underweight."

THE State Commission concluded that Petitioner should be heavily punished so that they do not sell underweight pouches in future. THEy were, therefore, directed to pay Rs.5 lakhs as damages out of which Rs.50,000/ - would be given to the Respondent as compensation for mental agony and harassment and the balance amount would be deposited in the fund of the State Legal Aid Authority. Rs.10,000/ - was levied as costs. Hence, the present revision petition.

COUNSEL for Petitioner and Respondent in -person were present. COUNSEL for Petitioner reiterated again that since sealing of the pouch was slanted instead of being straight, it was tampered with. Further, since the Plant is a fully automated modern plant, it is not possible for underweight packets to be marketed by the Petitioner/Federation. It was also pointed out that the District Forum had rightly concluded that in the absence of important evidence including the name of the shopkeeper from where the milk pouch was bought and the delay of over a week in approaching the officials of Weights & Measures to check the weight of pouch clearly indicates that Respondent had not come with clean hands. Explaining the compounding of the offence before the Controller of Weights & Measures, COUNSEL for Petitioner stated that it had done because the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 provides that no further proceedings in the instant case can again be taken against the Petitioner. Learned State Commission erred in not fully appreciating these facts and allowed the Respondent"s appeal.

RESPONDENT in -person stated that the order of the State Commission needs to be upheld because the State Commission had given plausible reasons for accepting his contentions including the admission of the offence by Petitioner/Federation before the Controller of Weights and Measures who had also confirmed that the milk pouch purchased by RESPONDENT was underweight and also concluding that the Petitioner has not been able to produce any evidence to show that the sealing of the pouch have been tampered with.

WE have heard both parties and have gone through the evidence on record. WE agree with the finding of the State Commission that there is adequate evidence on record to indicate that the milk pouch purchased by the Respondent was underweight since this fact was confirmed by the officials of the WEights & Measures Department of UT Chandigarh. Regarding the tampering of the seal, we note that except for the Petitioner''s contention that it was tampered with (because the sealing of the pouch in question was slanted) there is no other evidence to support this fact. The officials of WEights & Measures Department who had inspected the pouch in the presence of representatives of the Petitioner have not made such observation in their Report. Further, the fact that the Petitioner compounded the offence by paying Rs.15,000/ - in respect of the Respondent''s underweight pouch clearly established admission of their deficiency in this case. The contention of Counsel for Petitioner that the compounding was done because as per Section 65 [Explanation (e)] of the Standards of WEights and Measures Act, 1976, it has been specifically stated that no proceeding or further proceeding can be taken against the offender where an offence has been compounded, is not tenable because as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a consumer cannot be deprived of seeking a remedy under Section 3 of the above Act which states that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. These issues have also been dealt with at length by the State Commission and for the reasons stated above we agree and uphold the finding of the State Commission. WE, however, feel that the penalty imposed on the Petitioner is harsh keeping in view the facts of the case. WE, therefore, reduce the damages imposed on the Petitioner from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.50,000/ -. Out of this amount, Rs.25,000/ - would be deposited by the Petitioner in the fund of the State Legal Aid Authority and the remaining Rs.25,000/ - be given to the Respondent as compensation for mental harassment and deficiency in service etc. Rs.5,000/ - are awarded as costs. Counsel for Petitioner states that Petitioner has already deposited Rs.1 lakh before the State Commission. If that be the case, after Petitioner has deposited Rs.25,000/ - with the State Legal Aid Authority and handed over Rs.30,000/ - to the Respondent including costs of Rs.5,000/ -, the remaining amount may be refunded to the Petitioner. This revision petition is disposed of on the above terms.