Hello
@shruti garg
View Similar Judgment
Chandigarh - DF-II -
Amul India V/S Danial Masih
Danial Masih s/o Sh.Prem Masih, R/o H.No.300, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh.
……..
Complainant
Versus
- Amul India, Head Office Customer Care, Gujrat Cooperative Milk, Marketing Federation, P.O. Box No.10, Amul Dairy Road, Anand 388001
- M/s Mandhari Provisional Stores, SCO 37, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh.
……….
Opposite Parties
The case of the complainant, in brief is that, he on 5.10.2018 purchased Amul Milk from Opposite Party No.2. It is averred that the said milk was found sour and when it was put in Tea, the tea was spoiled. It is also averred that the date of manufacturing on the said Packet of Milk was printed as 10.8.2018 and it was valid for three months. It is stated that the complainant brought this matter to the notice of OPs, but they did not pay any heed. Hence, this complaint has been filed.
2] The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply and stating that it is only a marketing company which only looks after marketing of the milk and is not the manufacturer of the milk and manufacturer should be made party. It is stated that the milk has 90 days expiry only under suitable storage conditions. It is stated that there are many reasons for souring of the milk e.g. if the milk is poured into a contained which is not properly clean or if it is not kept under suitable conditions after opening the packet.
It is submitted that the complainant has not produced any document to substantiate that the said milk was used by him in ideal conditions following necessary precautions or even the fact that the said pack was not puffed when so purchased by him and he exercised due diligence, which a buyer is expected while purchasing the said commodity.
It is stated that the complainant mentioned that he purchased the milk in question on 5.10.2018 whereas produced the bill dated 15.10.2018. It is also stated that the complainant has not mentioned the batch number and in the absence of batch number, one cannot come to any conclusion as to fumigation of milk. Other allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.
The Opposite Party No.2 has filed reply and while admitting the sale of milk to the complainant’s brother, stated that milk packet was neither puffed nor leaked at the time of purchase of milk by complainant’s brother.
It is stated that the milk can get spoiled due to any reasons for e.g. If the milk is poured into a container which is not properly clean/dry, there are chances of milk getting fulminated. It is also stated that the milk has to be kept under suitable conditions after opening the packet otherwise there are chances of milk getting fulminated.
It is submitted that the complainant on the same day came to the shop with one sealed packet of milk and started creating hue & cry and started arguing without any cause and since Opposite Party did not want to get into arguments, took one sealed packet from the complainant and returned the money for the sealed packet as well other two packets of the milk.
It is submitted that Opposite Party No.2 is merely a retailer and is not responsible unless the packet sold is either puffed, leaked or expired. It is also submitted that the milk sold was under stipulated period mentioned on the packet. Denying other allegations of the complainant, Opposite Party NO.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
ORDER:
Keeping into consideration the entire facts, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, no discrepancy or deficiency in service is made out against the Opposite Parties and as such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Thanks
