Sunday, September 12, 2010

Parle Marie Biscuit punished for adulteration

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM DHARMAPURI

AT KRISHNAGIRI

PRESENT : THIRU.S.ARUMUGAM, B.A,B.L., PRESIDENT

TMT.K.KASTHURI, B.A.,B.L., MEMBER-I

THIRU.M.VISWABHARATHI, M.A.,B.L., MEMBER-II


C.C.NO.55/2009

DATED THIS THE THURSDAY 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2010

S.Manjunath,

Joint Secretary,

Consumer and Environment Protection Supervising Unit,

68/A1, Jayshankar Colony,

Hosur. …Complainant

-Vs-

1. Proprietor,

Danam Departmental Store,

Bavani Plaza, Opp : Ramar Koil,

Nethaji Road, Hosur.

2. Proprietor,

Parle Products Pvt. Ltd.,

North Level Crossing, Vile Parle East,

Mumbai, MH – 400 057. …Opposite Parties

This complaint coming on 10.08.2010 for hearing before us Mr.S.Balaji, Advocate appearing for the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 remained absent and set exparte and Mr.S.M.Thanikachalam, Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 and having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 and having perused documents, having stood till this date for consideration this Forum pass the following :

ORDER

The complainant seeks directions to the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to refund Rs.19/-, the cost of the biscuits, to pay a sum of Rs.95,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay the cost of Rs.2,000/-.

2. The allegations in the complaint are briefly as follows : On 29.11.2008 at about 7.45 p.m the complainant purchased two packets of Parle Marie Biscuit from the Opposite Party No.1 at a cost of Rs.19/- for personal consumption. While he was consuming the biscuit in his house he found ugly black colour foreign object in some of the biscuits. When this was witnessed by his parents who already consumed biscuits suffered from vomiting. His parents unable to take dinner on that day which caused mental agony to the complainant. On 03.12.2008 a notice was issued to the Opposite Party No.1 through the Association of Consumer and Environment Protection and Watch. Since the Opposite Party No.1 failed to give any reply, notice was sent to the Opposite Party No.2 on 16.12.2008 for taking appropriate action. Till date no reply received from the opposite parties. Hence the complainant prays for the directions to the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to refund Rs.19/-, the cost of the biscuits, to pay a sum of Rs.95,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay the cost of Rs.2,000/-.

3. The Opposite Party No.1 remained absent and was set exparte.

4. The averments in the written version filed by the Opposite Party No.2 are briefly as follows : Parle Biscuit products is very hygienic and its quality stands No.1 in the country. So far no complaint was registered in the consumer care call as specifically mentioned on every product of the company. No written complaint was made to the office of the Opposite Party No.2 directly. Therefore Opposite Party No.2 was unable to proceed and take action in respect of the alleged product. The Opposite Party No.2 was having no idea as to what kind of object found in the product. The product of the Opposite Party No.2 will not contain any mingled object. The averment that the parents of the complainant were unable to eat dinner is denied. Based on false averment the present complaint has been filed for extracting money. The complainant himself might have fixed the black object in the biscuit. The packet was not at all sent to the laboratory. The complaint is baseless one. The question of causing mental agony does not arise. There is no foreign object in the biscuit packet. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2. In order to spoil the reputation of the company this complaint has been filed. Biscuit packet was not sent to lab test. The photocopy of the biscuit is not enough to prove the complainant's case. The complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint. Hence the Opposite Party No.2 prays for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost of Rs.5,000/-.

5. In Proof of the allegations in the complaint, the complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ex.A1, the copy of the invoice dated : 29.11.2008 issued by the Opposite Party No.1 for the purchase of the biscuits, Ex.A2, the copy of the notice dated : 03.12.2008 issued to the Opposite Party No.1, Ex.A3, the copy of the receipt for delivery of Ex.A2 to the Opposite Party No.1, Ex.A4, the copy of the notice dated : 16.12.2008 issued to the Opposite Party No.2, Ex.A5, the copy of the receipt for delivery of Ex.A4 to the Opposite Party No.2, Ex.A6 series, the photocopy of the product with foreign object and MO-1 series, the biscuits and the biscuit packets. The Opposite Party No.1 remained absent and was set expare. The Opposite Party No.2 filed proof affidavit in support of the averments in the written version. The Opposite Party No.2 has not marked any documents on his side.

6. The points that arise for consideration in this complaint are :

1. Whether the allegation of deficiency in service is proved ?

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

Point No : 1

7. The learned counsel for the complaint would contend that on 29.11.2008 the complainant purchased MO-1 series for personal consumption from the Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.19/-. The Opposite Party No.1 issued the invoice Ex.A1 for the said purchase. The complainant while he was consuming the said biscuits in his house found some ugly black foreign objects mingled in some of the biscuits. The parents of the complainant, who already consumed biscuits, while witnessing the same suffered from vomiting and they were unable to eat dinner on that day. The complainant through the consumer association issued the notice Ex.A2 to the Opposite Party No.1 which was delivered as per Ex.A3. Ex.A4 notice was also sent to the Opposite Party No.2 and the same was delivered as per Ex.A5. Neither of the parties sent reply to the notices. A perusal of biscuits in MO-1 series will make it clear that some ugly foreign object mingled with the biscuits. Hence according to the learned counsel, the Opposite Party No.1, who is the seller of the biscuits, and the Opposite Party No.2, the manufacturer of the biscuit, have committed deficiency in service. On the contra the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 would contend that the Parle Biscuits are manufactured by the Opposite Party No.2 in a very hygienic atmosphere and its quality is No.1 in the country. The alleged product was not sent for lab test to find out the truth. The complainant himself might have fixed such object in the biscuit in order to extract money from the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 is maintaining high quality and testing formalities for the product produced by it. Hence according to the learned counsel, the Opposite Party No.2 has not committed any deficiency in service.

8. Ex.A1 shows the purchase of MO-1 series from the Opposite Party No.1. A perusal of the wrapper of MO-1 series makes it clear that the product is manufactured by the Opposite Party No.2. When we look at some of the biscuits in MO-1 series we see that some ugly black foreign object is mingled in those biscuits. It is clearly visible in the naked eye and the foreign object could have been mingled with the biscuits when the biscuits were manufactured. It also looks as if no possibility for insertion of the foreign object in those biscuits by some other person at a later stage. It is a case of ab initio loquitur. The nature of the biscuits themselves speaks that it contains foreign object. Hence the product does not require lab test to ascertain whether it contains any foreign objects. The presence of foreign object in the biscuits which were packed by the manufacturer himself makes it crystal clear that the Opposite Party No.2 committed deficiency in service. The Opposite Party No.1 who sold those biscuits in the covered packets could not have any knowledge or notice whether those biscuits contain foreign objects. Hence Opposite Party No.1 cannot be said to have committed any deficiency in service while selling those biscuits to the complainant. In view of the above we are of the view that the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 is proved and we answer this point accordingly.

Point No : 2

9. In view of the finding given on the Point No.1 the complainant is entitled for the refund of the cost of the biscuits of Rs.19/- and the compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant which we assess at Rs.10,000/- in addition to the cost of Rs.2,000/- from the Opposite Party No.2 as reliefs and we answer this point accordingly.

10. In the result, the Opposite Party No.2 is directed (1) to pay a sum of Rs.19/- being the cost of the biscuits (2) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and (3) to pay the cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order by the Opposite Party No.2. The failure to do so will entail the Opposite Party No.2 to pay the said sum with interest at 6% p.a thereafter till the date of realization and accordingly this complaint is allowed as against Opposite Party No.2 with costs. The complaint as against Opposite Party No.1 is dismissed, but without costs.

Dictated by the President to Assistant Programmer who directly typed the same and corrected and pronounced this the Thursday the 12th day of August 2010.

Sdxxxx Sdxxxx Sdxxxx

Tmt.K.Kasthuri Thiru.M.Viswabharathi Thiru.S.Arumugam

MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT

List of Documents filed by the Complainant :

Ex.A-1. The copy of the invoice dated : 29.11.2008 issued by the Opposite Party

No.1 for the purchase of the biscuits.

Ex.A-2. The copy of the notice dated : 03.12.2008 issued to the Opposite Party

No.1.

Ex.A-3. The copy of the receipt for delivery of Ex.A2 to the Opposite Party No.1.

Ex.A-4. The copy of the notice dated : 16.12.2008 issued to the Opposite Party

No.2.

Ex.A-5. The copy of the receipt for delivery of Ex.A4 to the Opposite Party No.2.

Ex.A-6. The photocopy of the product with foreign object.

series

MO-1 series. The biscuits and the biscuit packets.

Sdxxxx Sdxxxx Sdxxxx

Tmt.K.Kasthuri Thiru.M.Viswabharathi Thiru.S.Arumugam

MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT

C.C.No.55/2009

Dated : 12.08.2010


Courtesy_

http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/195671008131641388705509.htm


http://www.maalaimalar.com/2010/09/12143536/expired-biscuit-rs-12-thousand.html


No comments:

Post a Comment

Disclaimer

This Blog Spot is meant for publishing landmark judgments pronounced by the Consumer forum, Consumer State Commission, Consumer National Commission, Supreme Court as we collected from the renowned Dailies, Magazines, etc., so as to create an awareness to the general public and also to keep it as a ready reckoner by them. As such the readers may extend their gratitude towards the Original Author as we quoted at the bottom of each Post under the title "Courtesy/Sources". Furthermore, the Blog Authors are no way responsible for the correctness of the materials published herein and the readers may verify the concerned valuable sources.