CLAIM UNDER SECTION 23 (4) OF PUNJAB CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 2005.
1. The DDO (Health) Sahiwal visited the "New Tekko Bakery" Masjid-e- Shuhda Chowk Farid Town, Sahiwal and found that "Kolson Slanti Jalapeno Flavour" was being sold there without date of manufacturing and expiry. He brought the matter into the knowledge of EDO (Health) who forwarded it to D.C.O/Authority for appropriate action which submitted the matter to this Court for further legal action. Before that, legal notice under section 28 (1) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 was issued to the defendants on 13-1-11 but the defendants did not reply to it.
2. Vide order dated 11.04-11, the claim to the extent of defendant No. 2 has been dismissed due to non-provision of correct address.
3. The defendant No. 1 i.e Managing Director K.S Sulemangi, smailgi & Sons, resisted the claim forwarded to this court by DCO/Authority. It refuted the allegations leveled by the claimant.
According to it, the Company had won best quality product award and that the reference had been sent to this Court with a mala file intention.
4. The parties were asked to substantiate their respective contentions through evidence. The claimant examined Muhammad Saeed Sabri Pw-1 and also placed on record the packet of Kolson Slanti Ex-p1, legal notices Ex-p2 and p3 and postal receipts Ex -p4 & p5.
5. Dr. Muhammad Saeed Sabri stated that the Slanti Packet manufactured by the defendant No. 1 being sold through defendant No. 2, did not carry the date of manufacturing and expiry. Therefore, the said product could be injurious to the health of public. He was subjected to cross examination but nothing favourable to the case of the defendant could be brought on record.
6. Muhammad Zia Ashfaque, Area Sales Manager, Sahiwal zone appeared on behalf of defendant No. 1 as Dw-1 and stated that the Company was awarded the award of best product in the year 2008 besides other awards. According to him, his products are never sold /supplied without date of manufacturing and expiry.
7. The defendant placed on record certificate of registration mark A, product being prepared and sold presently in market Ex D-1.
8. According to certificate of registration, the defendant No. 1 was awarded the certificate in recognition of organization's Quality Management System which complied with ISO 22000.2005. He also produced on record newly prepared packet of product in question as Ex-D-1 it contained date of manufacturing and date of expiry. Muhammad Zia Dw-1 was present in the court at the time of arguments who was confronted with packet already available on the record as Ex p-1 which was without date of manufacturing and expiry. He half heartedly conceded that the mistake might have been committed in past but now, the company was very careful in the matter. It was paying special attention to the product and its date of manufacturing and expiry. The assertion so made by Muhammad Zia Ashfaque was supported by Ex D-1. The defendant No. 1 is recognized company.
It was awarded the certificate of recognition of organizations's Food Quality Management System which complied with ISO 22000-2005. It was no where asserted in the claim that any specifical damage had been caused to any person because of use of product. But it would not mean that the defendant Company was not at fault. The second fact to be taken into the account was that the defendant Company had taken remedial measures to remove the deficiency in product so far as it related to date of manufacturing and expiry. Therefore, the claim submitted by DCO/Authority may not be termed as false or frivolous. Consequently, the claim is accepted. Since the defendant Company has taken /adopted appropriate remedial measures therefore, the purpose of law would be served if the defendant is warned to remain careful in future. The defendant No. 1 shall keep in mind that if the fault/mistake, as discussed and pointed out above is repeated, strict legal action u/s 31& 32 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 may be taken against it.