ORDER

24.10.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. Complainant filed complaint in Hindi Language. In brief facts are that complainant purchased three sets of bath soaps of Yardley London Company having brand name English Lavender from OP1 Big Bazar Netaji Subhash Palace, Delhi on 31.10.2014. It is stated that on 10.11.2014 while using for 2-3 days then the skin of the body started stretching and black spots are started appearing on the skin of the body. The skin also become rough and from the black spots blood started oozing out. It is stated that on the body there were itching and rashes  appeared. It is further stated that after purchasing expensive bath soap resulted  in skin problem. It is stated that on 18.11.2014 an email was sent to the address written on the pack of the bath soap and also had telephonic conversation with the company official.  It is stated that the company official did not pay any heed and delayed the complaint made by complainant. It is stated that OP company assured that they will sent somebody but after waiting for 2-3 days no official visited the complainant. It is stated that complainant sent an email informing the company that she will lodge a complaint before this Forum than one official visited the complainant and handed over forcefully three sets of Yardely Bath Soaps and talcum power. It is stated that the complainant told the official that they will not use it.
2. The complainant is seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from Wipro company as it caused great skin problem, itching and black spots. The complainant suffered mental agony, harassment and pain.
3. OP1 filed detailed WS and taken preliminary objections that the present complaint is absolutely misdirected. It is stated that the deficiency of service, if any, is against OP2 who is the manufacturer of the soaps purchased by the complainant. It is further stated that the soaps were purchased from the outlet of OP1 does not give rise to any cause of action against it and no liability can be fastened on them. It is stated that the warranty is given by the manufacturer and not by the retailed of the product. It is stated that complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground.
4. It is stated that OP1 is a popular retail store where various products are sold under their respective brand names. It is stated that the products in present case were soaps English Lavender. It is further stated that the warranty on the product is offered by the manufacturer and the OP1 being only a retail outlet cannot be held responsible for any defect in the product or any deficiency in service in respect thereof which is solely attributable to the  manufacturer or its authorized agent.
5. It is stated that the present complaint is wholly baseless and misconceived. It is further stated that complainant purchased the English Lavender soaps from the store of OP1. It is further stated that the responsibility of OP1 is only to facilitate the actual enforcement of the warranty. It is stated that no complaint was lodged by the complainant about the defect of the product with OP1. It is further stated that therefore the alleged deficiency of service, if any, is attributable to OP2 as warranty regarding the performance of the product is within the exclusive domain of OP2.
6. It is stated that OP1 is not a necessary or a proper party in the present complaint as the warranty in respect of the product purchased by a customer is given by the manufacturer of the product. It is stated that the  manufacturer of the product is liable for any defect in the product or for any after sales services related the said product. It is further stated that OP is merely retail out let and no liability can be fastened on it in respect of any defect in the product. It is stated that the name of OP1 is therefore, liable to be deleted from the array of parties as  no cause of action has accrued in favor of the complainant for filing the present complaint against it.
7. It is stated that neither any deficiency of service nor any unfair trade practice has been alleged by the complainant against the OP in the present complaint nor has any compensation been claimed against it by the complainant. It is further stated that the complaint is an abuse of the process of law and merits dismissal with exemplary costs.
8. On merit all the allegations made in the complaint are denied by OP and reiterated contents of preliminary objections.
9. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP1 and denied all the allegations made therein.
10. OP2 filed detailed WS. It is stated that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless, malicious and a flagrant abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed as such.
11. It is stated that a perusal of the prayer column would shows that the complaint has been filed by the complainant with a view to enrich herself in an undue manner by claiming exorbitant amount without any cause of action for making such a huge claim and therefore, liable to be dismissed in limini without going in to the merits. It is further stated that the complainant has attached the bill to the complainant as proof of purchase of the soaps which should not be considered as valid invoice, because there is no name of the complainant mentioned on such alleged invoice. It is further stated that therefore, the complainant is not a valid consumer. It is stated that it cannot be established that the product purchased by the complainant is the actual consumer of the soap.
12. It is stated that since the complainant has not provided the label of the impugned product to the OP2, therefore, the OP2 is not in a position to know the batch number, date of manufacture or the manufacturer of the impugned product, and if at all, the product was in fact manufactured by the OP2. It is stated that the soap “Yardley English Lavender” is manufactured by the OP2 in modern sophisticated plants located at Tumkur, Karnataka with high standards of international quality. It is further stated that the “Yardley English Lavender” falls under the category of Toilet Soap as per the Bureau of Indian Standards, therefore, the OP2 complies with the BIS Standards for manufacturing process and denies complainant’s averment as made in the complaint.  It is stated that the manufacturing process of soap involves strict quality checks at various stage of manufacture.
13. It is stated that the raw materials that go into manufacturing of Yardley English Lavender soap and the formulation of the soap is approved by the Drug Controller. It is further stated that all the raw materials are also tested before usage in the manufacturing process as per BIS standard procedures. It is stated that OP2 has a well qualified and experienced team of chemists who test every lot of the finished product as per BIS procedures. It is stated that manufacturing facility of the OP2 is from to time, audited by the concerned statutory authority. It is further stated that manufacturing facility of OP2 is also ISO certified  for its quality management systems after such audit. It is further stated that therefore, the entire story put up by the complainant is fictitious and badly concocted for the sole purpose of misleading the Hon’ble Forum and making pecuniary gains.
14. It is stated that complainant has alleged in the complaint that extensive damage was caused to her and her sister’s skin after using the soap “Yardley English Lavender” bath soap and that there were spots on the skin and blood also oozed out from their respective skins. It is stated that it is quite surprising that the complainant and her sister did not visit any  doctor or any skin specialist and rather chose to make the frivolous complaint to the OP2 and then to this Hon’ble Forum. It is stated that there is not even a single document on record to shows that any damage, if at all was caused to the skin of the complainant and her sister. It is further stated that that he complainant has not placed on record any medical prescription or O.P.D slip that shows the factum of the treatment from a skin specialist  or any other medical help or advice sought by her. It is stated that the product of OP2 i.e Yardley English Lavender soap is growing year and year and the sales figures of product of OP2 as certified by Chartered Account is also filed on record for past 3 years. It is stated that no such complaint of such nature of their product has ever been received by them at all. It is further stated that the complainant and her sister had not suffered any kind of spots on the skin and no blood also oozed out from the skins of the complainant and complainant’s sister by using a soap of OP2. 
15. It is stated that the OP2 has been discovered instances of spurious activities in the market who illegally being passed off as ‘Yardely’ soap. It is further stated that these spurious manufacturers camouflage and pass off such spurious goods as those of the OP2 to gain huge profits for themselves by cheating the consumers. It is stated that such unscrupulous persons have even mastered the art of using the similar labels and packages. It is further stated that OP2 has been taking necessary stops to control the menace in respect of their products with the help of local police stations at various part of the country. Copies of some of the FIRs filed by OP2 and copy of the local lawyer letter dt 3^rd March 2014 intimating the seizure of counterfeit Yardely soaps at Tughlakabad, New Delhi is filed on record.
16. It is stated that OP2 listen to the complaint of the complainant over phone. It is further stated that OP2 upon receipt of the complaint had immediately deputed its representative who visited the complainant to understand the nature of the complaint. It is stated that complainant instead of cooperating with OP2 demanded compensation for her alleged grievance but the complainant refused to share details and kept on demanding Rs.10,00,000/- from the official and threatened unwarranted legal action against OP2. It is further stated that complaint has been lodged solely to make unlawful gains by putting the reputation of the OP2 at question. It is stated that the complainant refused to cooperate with OP2 in any manner so as to ascertain the cause of her alleged grievance. It is further stated that the said complaint is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the said Act.
17.  It is stated that no cause of action has arisen against the OP2 for the reason that the complainant has miserably failed to prove that any physical damage to the skin, at all was caused to her and her sister by the use of the product of OP2. It is stated that the product of OP2 is very high quality and there has not been a single complaint received against the product till date. It is further stated that OP2 is renowned for its superior quality products for over decades. It is stated that its products hold enviable high reputation and goodwill among the households all over India. It is further stated that complainant has not suffered any  physical or mental agony at all by the use of Soap “Yardley English Lavender”. It is further stated that the quality of the product is thoroughly tried and tested.
18. It is stated that alleged invoice issued by OP2 filed by the complainant to the complaint as proof of purchase of soap cannot be considered as consumer, since there  is no name of the complainant mentioned on such alleged invoice. It is further stated that the complainant has not come before this court with clean hands. It is stated that the complainant repeatedly asked for the money to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- from OP2. It is further stated that the sole aim of the complainant is to extract money from OP herein.
19. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP2 and denied all the allegations made therein.
20. Complainant filed evidence by way of her affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint.
21. OP1 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sachin Yadav and reiterated contents of WS.
22. OP2 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Rovena David Legal Manager and reiterated contents of complaint. OP2 relied on board resolution dated 27.01.2016 Ex.OPW1/A, copy of ISO certificate Ex.OPW1/B, sales figures of product of the OP2 as certified by Chartered Account for the past 3 years Ex.OPW1/C, copies of some of the FIRs filed by OP2 Ex.OPW1/D, copy of the local lawyer letter dated 3^rd March 2014intimating the seizure of counterfeit Yardely soaps at Tughlakabad, New Delhi Ex.OPW1/E.
23. Written arguments filed by complainant, OP1 as well as OP2.
24. We have heard Ms. Shiv Kanta Verma proxy for Sh. M.K Gill counsel for complainant and Sh. Varun Varma counsel for OP2. Despite ample opportunities neither OP1 nor counsel appeared and addressed oral arguments. However we have gone through written arguments filed by OP1.
25. The complainant filed on record bill dated 31.10.2014 of OP1 Big Bazaar whereby the alleged Yardley Lavander Bath Soap was purchased. The complainant also filed an email dated November 2018 wherein specifically complaint was made after using the bath soap that complainant suffered from skin rashes with blood and black spots alongwith itching and felt very uncomfortable. The complainant also filed photograph of such rashes on the body, however, complainant has not filed on record any document with regard to treatment and expenses incurred for curring the alleged rashes. The OP1 admitted the fact that complainant purchased the alleged soap from the Big Bazaar, however, denied any deficiency of service as the manufacturer is OP2 Wipro company. OP2 had disputed these allegations. The OP2 admitted the fact that the alleged soap “Yardley English Lavander” is manufactured by OP2 and claimed that OP2 followed all the standards of international quality. It is also admitted by OP2 that at various instances of spurious soaps were noticed in the market. The OP2 as per record did not take any steps to discover the fact that the alleged soap purchased by complainant is spurious or not. On the other hand challenged the locus standi of complainant. We have gone through the record, complainant and his sister used the alleged soap. The purchase of the soap established on the basis of the bill of OP1 Big Bazaar. The OP2 filed on record several documents wherein FIR was lodged and proper reports were sought when noticed about spurious soap product, however, in the present case no justification given why no such steps are taken to discover the fact that the soap purchased by complainant is spurious or not. There is no material on record that at any point of time OP2 taken any steps to enquire from the OP1 with regard to the alleged soaps purchased by complainant. We are of considered opinion that OP2 is the manufacturer of the alleged soap purchased by complainant from OP1.The photographs filed on record are sufficient that complainant suffered rashes after using the bath soap of Yardley Lavander Bath Soap. The complainant established deficiency of service against OP2.
26. On the basis of above observation and discussion we direct OP2 Wipro Enterprises Ltd. to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant within one month from the receipt of this order. In case of default OP2 is directed to pay interest @ 9% till realization. File be consigned to record room.
27. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  24.10.2024.

          SANJAY KUMAR                                        NIPUR CHANDNA              

                         PRESIDENT                                                    MEMBER