ORDER Mr. Justice Surinder Sarup, (Retd.), President: - This appeal is against the order of the learned District Forum, Shimla Camp at Nahan, dated 15.3.2002, as a result of which the appellant has been held to be guilty of culpable negligence amounting to deficiency of service in the process of manufacture of Chocolates. The charge of unfair trade practice has also been foisted on it and Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded as damages to the complainant/respondent No. 1-Shri Rakesh Kaushal, in addition to which litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- has also been awarded. The dealer Shri Rakesh Aggarwal, respondent No. 2 has further been directed tq refund the cost of the defective chocolate i.e. Rs. 16/- to the complainant. 2. The facts alleged in the complaint in brief are that two packets of Cadburys Chocolate weighing 44 Grams made from dairy milk were purchased by the complainant from respondent No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 32/- for being consumed by his son. This transaction took place on 16.11.2000. On being opened, one of the Chocolate packets was found to be infested with a worm. The said chocolate packet was taken to respondent No. 2 who gave the explanation that he has received the said contaminated chocolate in the same condition from respondent No. 3 i.e. the dealer - M/s. Aggarwal Traders. Hence, the complaint with a prayer that compensation of Rs: 1, 00,000/- should be awarded. 3. In its reply, the appellant denied the allegations and also took up the plea that the complainant .had failed to follow the procedure as contained in Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter to be called the "Act". In their joint reply, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 did not deny the sale and purchase of the alleged contaminated chocolate packets. It was, however, stated that the said item was never shown to respondent No. 2. It was alleged that the writing was obtained by the complainant from him as a result of coercion and pressure from the complainant, he being a high ranking officer. 4. The learned Forum below has placed reliance on the receipt Annexure-A as well as the writing Annexure-B purported to have been obtained from respondent No. 2, in addition to the affidavit of the complainant. 4. The learned Forum below has placed reliance on the receipt Annexure-A as well as the writing Annexure-B purported to have been obtained from respondent No. 2, in addition to the affidavit of the complainant. On the other hand, the evidence produced by the respondents i.e. the affidavit of the Factory Quality Assurance Manager of the appellant as well as the affidavit of respondent No. 3 have only been referred to in the impugned order but has not been discussed at all. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued the point which was also argued before the learned Forum below on its behalf, that the complainant did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act. This argument was brushed aside by heavily relying on the report of the Public Analyst by the learned Forum below. In this context, it may be noticed that the alleged contaminated Chocolate bar was purchased for consumption of( his son by the complainant on 16.11.2000. The complaint was filed on 14.12.2000. Thereafter, on the appearance- of the opposite parties i.e. respondents on 8.3.2Q01, the case was listed for reply on 20.4.2001. On that date, the case was adjourned to 4.5,2001 for evidence of the complainant. Another opportunity was provided for this purpose on 4.5.2001 and the proceedings were adjourned to 15.6.2001. It was on the last date i.e. 15.6.2001 that an application was moved for analysis of the alleged contaminated chocolate bar. In this sequence of events, there is force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there was a gap of 7 months between the date of purchase of the said chocolate bar and the date of application for getting it analysed chemically. It consequently follows that it was incumbent on the complainant to have produced the alleged contaminated chocolate bar duly sealed along with his complaint at the inception, which was not done. Moreover, even when he applied for analysis of the same on 15.6.2001, he did not produce the said chocolate, and it was on the direction of the learned forum below on hat date that he produced it on 20.7.2001. Moreover, even when he applied for analysis of the same on 15.6.2001, he did not produce the said chocolate, and it was on the direction of the learned forum below on hat date that he produced it on 20.7.2001. It was then that on the direction of the Forum, it was wrapped and sealed with the seal of the Court, the sample of which was retained on the case file, while directing that the said sealed packet of chocolate should be sent to the Public Analyst detailed and comprehensive examination at Kandaghat and the case was adjourned to 21.9.2001 to await the report in this behalf. 6. In view of the above discussion, it was incumbent on the complainant to have produced the chocolate at the very inception along with the complaint so that it could be examined with a naked eye in order to satisfy the learned forum below that it indeed was infested with worms, as it is his own case that on being opened, it was found to be so infested. This glaring omission on his part renders the belated examination by the Public Analyst to be wholly irrelevant in order to find out that indeed it was infested with worms and thus contaminated. The learned Forum below, in its haste and wisdom, completely chose to ignore this very important aspect of the case which goes to the root of the matter. 7. We also find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the mandatory provisions of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act have not been complied with by the learned Forum below in the present case. According to the same, where the complainant alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complaint, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sealed sample to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction to make the analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods, suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint and to report his findings thereon to the District Forum. In the present case, the defect was in an edible goods i.e. the alleged worm-infested chocolate bar, thus it was incumbent and necessary for the same to be produced at the very inception i.e. the date of filing of the complaint, so that it could have been sealed there and then and thereafter sent for analysis or test, as the case may be. As already referred to above, the said chocolate having been produced, and that too not voluntarily by the complainant but only after he was so directed by the learned Forum, after 8 months of its purchase, the very purpose of getting it tested was defeated because of this inordinate delay. The same being a perishable item, the possibility cannot be ruled out that it was rendered unfit for consumption and for being tested by the Public Analyst already, because of the long gap of time1 that it remained in the possession of the complainant. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the learned Forum below has gone completely off the track, possibly, it being a complaint from a high ranking Officer of the State official machinery, in allowing his complaint in the manner it has been done. The very fact that damages of Rs. 25,000/- have been awarded in respect of the alleged chocolate bar costing only Rs. 16/- points a needle of suspicion in the manner the complaint in the present case has been decided through the impunged order by the learned Forum below. 9. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is palpably illegal and erroneous and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. We order accordingly and the appeal is accepted and disposed of to that extent. -