R.RAMACHANDRA, MASTER vs SURESH And ASHOK

THE complainant was working as a Teacher in the Government High School, Jalahalli, Bangalore. Sri. S. T. Ganganna (CW-1) is also working in the same school. Sri. K. Raghavendra Char (CW-2) was also working in that school till about 5-6 months back when he was transferred from that school.

THE complainant purchased PVC Sandak chappals from the Bata Show-room in Rajajinagar in about 1987. After, wearing those chappals for about 3 months he developed white patches on both his feet. According to the complainant his skin was affected due to the chemical compounds used in manufacturing PVC Sandak Badsha chappals of Bata Company. When he complained about it to the Manager of the shop, he was given another pair of leather chappals in exchange for the PVC chappals. THEn he sent a complaint dated 5.2.1987 to the Managing Director of Bata Company, Calcutta as per the original of Exhibit R-7(a). THEn he was got examined by Dr. Surendra (RW-1) who prescribed certain tests for the complainant. THEreafter the Bata Company officials never cared to take him for undergoing those tests. Hence he sent a complaint dated 1.3.1990 to the District Forum, Bangalore, claiming compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. That complaint was returned to him by the District Forum on 24.3.1990 for presenting it to this Commission as it had no jurisdiction. On 30.3.1990, he submitted the said complaint to this Commission. The complaint is resisted by the respondents by contending inter alia that they are not the manufacturers of the PVC chappals in question as they are only arranging for sale of all footwears manufactured and supplied by Bata India Limited, that they are not the traders as they are only the employees of the Company; that M/s. Eskaps India (P) Ltd. , Calcutta tested the PVC chappals and have issued a certificate as per Exhibit R-6 to the effect that the PVC chappals do not contain any chemical compounds injurious to human skin, that Vitiligo could be contracted by various reasons and not necessarily by using PVC chappals, that although lakhs of persons use their chappals, no other person has complained about contracting white patches by using such chappals. that the complainant has not contracted white patches by using those chappals and he must have contracted them on account of his individual susceptibility and that the compensation claimed as exhorbitant.

Cws 1 & 2 have been examined on behalf of the complainant. RWs 1 to 6 have been examined and Exhibits R1 to R9 have been produced on behalf of the respondents. RW-4 was examined on Commission.

THE first and the most important point that arises for determination in this case is whether the complainant has proved that he contracted the white patches on his feet by using PVC Sandak Badsha chappals sold to him by the respondents. It is not disputed that a pair of PVC Badsha chappals was purchased by the complainant from the show-room of the respondents in Rajajinagar, Bangalore. According to the complainant, he purchased them in about 1987 and after using them for about three months he developed three small white patches on the dorsem of each of his foot. THE complainant has not entered the Witness Box to substantiate his averments in his complaint. He has not offered himself for cross- examination by the respondents. It is not disputed by the complainant that he was examined by Dr. Surendra (RW1) on 22.4.1987. Exhibits R-1 & R-2 are the notes and certificates of RW-1. RW-1 has stated that he advised the complainant to undergo urine, stools and blood tests and also to have skin biopsy and scraping for fungus. He has stated that the complainant never showed him those test reports and that he would have diagnosed the disease of the complainant if he had undergone those tests and he could have treated him. He has also stated that there was a possibility of complainant being cured if he had taken proper treatment. The complainant has not subjected himself to those tests. He has not produced any report in that behalf. The reason for not getting those test reports is immaterial but the fact remains that the complainant did not undergo those tests and try to get himself treated for the disease.

EVEN during the pendency of these proceedings before the Commission, an application was filed by the learned Counsel for the respondents for getting the complainant examined by the Government Medical Board of the Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore. The complainant refused to be examined by the Board, although he had earlier consented to be examined by the Board. If the complainant had been examined by the Medical Board, perhaps the Commission would have had the benefit of the opinion of the Board regarding the white patches. Under the circumstances, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the complainant that if he had undergone those tests and examination by the Medical Board, the result would have falsified his case that he contracted the white patches by using the chappals. Rw-5 who is the Retail Manager of the Bata Company has stated that lakhs of people have purchased PVC chappals of their company and nobody has complained about contracting white patches by using PVC chappals. If the complaint of the complainant is true then many other users might have also contracted white patches. Dr. R. K. Mondal (Rw-6) who is the Chief Chemist of Eskaps India (P) Ltd. . and who is also working as Guest Lecturer in applied Chemistry of Calcutta University has stated that he analysed the sample of PVC chappal sent by the Bata Company and issued a certificate as per Exhibit R-6 stating that it did hot contain any chemical compound which is injurious to human skin. There is no reason to discard his evidence especially as he is a qualified person holding degree of Master of Technology and Ph.D. Degree of Calcutta University. There is also nothing elicited in his cross-examination which would cost doubt on his testimony. His evidence establishes that the PVC chappals do not contain any chemical compound which is injurious to human skin. This also negatives the contention of the complainant that the chemical compound used in the PVC chappals has produced those white patches.

THE evidence of Dr. Surendra (RW-1) and the evidence of RW-4 who is also a dermatologist and who has written a Book on ''Dermatology'' as per Exhibit R-3 establishes that the white patches which are technically called as ''Vitiligo'' could be contracted by individual susceptibility and it may also be hereditory. Both of them have stated that it is not possible for them to give the exact cause of Vitiligo. It is for the complainant to exclude all other possibilities and prove unmistakably that it was by using PVC chappal that he contracted white patches on his feet. He has failed to prove the same. THE possibility of the complainant contracting those white patches by reason other than by using PVC chappals cannot be excluded. In view of the said reasons, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove that he contracted Vitiligo (white patches on his feet) by using PVC Sandak chappals purchased by him for the respondents.

WE are not impressed by the evidence of RW-2 that while measuring the feet of the complainant at the time when he had been to their shop for purchasing the chappals, he noticed white patches on his feet. It is significant to note that the said fact has not been mentioned in the written statement of the respondents. Hence, we are of the view that the said witness being the employee of the respondents has been persuaded to make that statement in favour of his company. If his evidence was true, then naturally they would not have failed to give reply stating the said fact to the complainant when he filed his first complaint as per Exhibit R-7(a). They would not have also made arrangements to get the complainant examined by the doctor if his evidence was true. CWs 1 & 2 have only stated that they saw the complainant using PVC chappals and thereafter complainant told them that he developed white patches after using them for about 2-3 months. In the absence of expert''s evidence and as the complainant himself has not stepped into the witness box, their evidence will be of little assistance to the complainant to prove his case. The complaint of the complainant is dated 1.3.1990. He had earlier presented that complaint to the District Forum, Bangalore. It appears that it was received by District Forum 14.3.1990 as can be seen from the seal and date put on it. The said complaint was presented to this Commission on 30.3.1990. In his complaint, the complainant has stated that he purchased the chappals in 1987 and used them for about three months. In Exhibit R-7(a) dated 5.2.1987 the complainant has stated that after using the chappals for about 2-3 months he developed skin disease. From this, it is clear that the complainant must have purchased the chappals from the respondent''s shop about 2-3 months prior to 5.2.1987. This probabilities the say of RW-2 that the complainant purchased a pair of PVC chappals in November 1986. Even accepting the say of the complainant he must have purchased the chappals in about December 1986 atleast prior to 5.2.1987. From Exhibit R-7(a), it is clear that by 5.2.1987 he had developed white patches by using the chappals. So the cause of action arose on or before 5.2.1987. Hence, the complaint filed on 1.3.1990 is barred by time under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. It appears that the complainant with a view to show that his complaint is in time has falsely stated that he purchased the chappals in 1987. On this ground also the complaint has to be dismissed.

In the Result, the complaint is dismissed. Under the circumstances of the case, we direct the Parties to bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed.