CLAIM UNDER SECTION 23 (4) OF PUNJAB CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 2005.
1. The DDO (Health) Sahiwal, took a sample from Ahson s/o Akram, owner of Imran General Store, Ansar Road, Sahiwal. The said sample of "Nimko Mix" was found without dates of manufacturing and expiry. He observed that the said product could be dangerous for health of general public.
2. The legal notices u/s 28 (1) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 were issued to the defendants on 12-1-11 but no response was given to the said notices. DDO (Health) submitted the matter to EDO (Health) for further proceedings who, in turn referred it to DCO/Authority for appropriate legal proceedings. The DCO/Authority referred the matter to this Court for legal proceedings against the defendants for violation of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005.
3. Despite service, the defendant No. 2 did not appear in the Court, therefore, he was proceeded against exparte on 28-03-11.
4. The defendant No. 1 submitted the written statement on 20-4-11 and refuted the allegation leveled against it. It submitted that proceedings had been initiated with capricious and whimsical intentions, the claimant had not approached the Court with clean hands, the claim contained plethora of lies, the claim was not maintainable as the defendant Company was corporate body and juristic person, the claim was time barred, legal requirements contained in section 28 (1) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 had not been fulfilled, the Authority's claim was in contravention of Rules No. 5 (a)and 7 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Rules 2009. It was asserted that the defendant Company was a recognized company and it never compromised with quality, caliber and taste. However, the defendant admitted that fault regarding non-mentioning of manufacturing and expiry dates on certain " Nimko Mix" products was a mechanical error which were later removed. It claimed that the fault, if any, was not intentional. The defendant No. 1 prayed for dismissal of the claim.
5. The parties were asked to substantiate their respective contentions through their evidence. The claimant examined Doctor Muhammad Saeed Sabri, DDO (H) Pw-1. It was placed on record recovery memo of sample Ex-P1, legal notices and postal receipt Ex-P2 to P4 and sealed sample Ex-p5. The defendant No. 1 relied upon training schedule mark A and closed its evidence.
6. Doctor Muhammad Saeed Sabri Pw-1 reiterated facts incorporated in the reference/claim and the report. He verified preparation of recovery memo P-1, issuance of legal notices Ex-p1 to p4 and sample of " Nimko Mix" Ex-p5. He was subjected to cross examination but nothing favourable to the case of the defendant No. 1 could be brought on record.
7. The defendant No. 1 placed on record training schedule mark A, perusal whereof, would show that defendant No. 1 was imparting a proper training to maintain good quality of the product, particularly, after the dispute having arisen.
8. As per contents of reference, the only allegation against the defendants was that " Nimko Mix" manufactured by defendant No. 1 and sold through Ahson, the owner of Imran General Store, Ansar Road, Sahiwal was without dates of manufacturing and expiry. The defendant No. 2 as mentioned above, was exparte. He did not appear in the court despite service. Therefore, there was no rebuttal on record on his behalf regarding the allegations leveled in the reference.
9. The defendant No. 1, in Para No. 15 of the written statement did not deny the allegations contained in the reference. The defendant No. 1 admitted that fact regarding non-mentioning of manufacturing and expiry dates on certain "Nimko Mix" product was a mechanical error. The machine which embossed the ribbon on the wrapper that stated the manufacturing and expiry date gave an error during printing. The flaw that arose was resolved instantaneously with a personal checking from that day onward till this date after every ten minutes by the quality control inspector during each shift. The admission made by the defendant No. 1 in Para No. 15 of the written statement would prove it beyond any doubt that the allegations regarding non-mentioning of date of manufacturing and expiry in reference were correct. Therefore, much stress is not required to be made to arrive at a truth. Both the defendants are therefore held liable for violation of Section 11 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005.
10. Before discussing the penalty to be imposed upon the defendants, I made add that no harm was caused to any person, at least, any unfortunate incident because of use of "Nimko Mix" was not reported. Therefore, the reference is accepted in terms that defendant No. 2 is restrained to sale any item prepared by defendant No. 1 until its products are prepared in-accordance with the law, particularly the provisions of PCPA, 2005. The defendant No. 2 shall also be duty bound to destroy the defective articles lying in his store having been supplied by the said Company. The defendant No. 1, as per documents furnished to this Court and available on record as mark A, has already taken remedial measures regarding the issue before this Court. However, as abundant caution, the defendant No. 1 is directed to ensure that its all products are prepared and manufactured as per provisions of Act ibid. It shall ensure that no faulty item is supplied in the market without mentioning of date of manufacturing and expiry in future. The Registrar of this court is directed to send the copy of the order to both the defendants for information and compliance.