Tribunals and Commissions

SAROJ VYAS vs SETHI MEDICAL STORE

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 27 January 2004 · Citation: 2004 3 CPJ 546

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.A.A.Khan , Sushma Tanwar J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 363 words
1.

-HEARD. This is complainant''s appeal from the order dated 15.5.1995 whereby the D.F., Ajmer, though accepted her complaint against the opposite party yet awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation. The grievance of the appellant was that the respondent had sold Rebax-C, a cough syrup, on 25.10.1993 though the expiry date of the said medicine had already arrived on 11.10.1993. This fact was not in dispute between the parties. The explanation offered by the respondent was that the sales man had unauthorisedly sold the said medicine after the expiry date and, therefore, the respondent should not be held liable for having sold defective goods to the appellant. The D.F. however negatived the explanation of the respondent and decreed appellant''s claim in the manner stated above. Hence this appeal by the complainant for enhancement of the compensation.

2.

WE were told that the respondent has not challenged the impugned order. In view of the fact that the respondent has not challenged the impugned order we hold that the respondent had sold a medicine to the appellant after the date of expiry of such medicine. It amounted to unfair trade practice as defined Sections 2(1)(nnn) and 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Moreover, the respondent is found to have, sold defective goods to the appellant.

Insofar as enhancement of the compensation awarded to the appellant by the D.F. is concerned we are of the opinion that since the appellant does not assert that she had though allegedly used such medicine and fallen sick yet there was no evidence to that effect. It is also not clear as to whether the appellant had come to know of the expiry date after the alleged use of the medicine by her. Looking to such evidence attending upon the grievance of the appellant we are not inclined to enhance either the amount of compensation or of cost.

3.

IN view of the above the appeal is dismissed. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned Drug INspector and Secretary to the Medical and Health Department, Jaipur for information and necessary action, if any. Appeal dismissed.