DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Narinder Kumar son of Sh.G.R.Ninwal, R/o House No.2333, Mauli Complex, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1]      Britannia Industries Ltd., 5/1-A, Hungerford Street, Kolkata 700017, through its Manager/Managing Director.

2]      Britannia Industries Ltd., 33, Lawrence Road, Delhi 110035, through its Manager/Managing Director

3]      Suresh Kumar, Proprietor, M/s. ASHU PROVISION STORE, Booth No.59, Maulijagran Complex, Chandigarh.

                                                ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:       SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                        

PRESIDING  MEMBER

                        DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA    

 MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Kamal Satija, Counsel for complainant.

                        Sh.Neeraj Khann, Counsel for OPs NO.1 & 2.

                        Sh.Suresh Kumar, Prop. O/O OP-3, in person.

PER  DR.(MRS) MADANJIT  KAUR  SAHOTA,  MEMBER

              Briefly stated, the complainant purchased one packet of Britannia Good Day Biscuits (Lot No.BO-31277 –Ann.C-1), on 23.3.2012 from OP-3 for a sum of Rs.25/-.  The OP-3 did not issue any bill for the said purchase. 

              It is averred that when the complainant opened the said packet of Britannia Biscuits, for his children and started consuming, his daughter noticed human/animal hair in it and started vomiting (Ann.C-2 & C-3).  She remained unwell for 3-4 days because of said incident.  The matter was brought to the notice of OP-3, who refused to entrain the complainant and asked the complainant to approach OPs No.1 & 2, being the manufacturers.  Ultimately, a legal notice was sent to the OPs through post, which was duly served (Ann.C-4 & C-10), but all in vain.  Hence, this complaint.

2]           OPs No.1 & 2 filed reply and admitted that they are the manufacturers of the Britannia Good Day Biscuits.  It is stated that they implement strict quality control measures for sorting/process the raw material for manufacturing bakery products.  The OP No.2 carries out random tests on the raw material supplied by the Vendors to ensure conformity of the quality standards for the raw material supplied with the quality/legal standards prescribed under the provisions of the FSSA Act and applicable legal provisions.  Subsequently, all the raw material supplied by the Vendor, which are used for manufacture of bakery products by the OP including said products, undergo a process of sieving/filtration to remove and hold back any unwanted particles from the raw material.  The filtered/sieved raw material is thereafter subjected to further filtration to detect any trace of any foreign material in the raw material.

              It is submitted that the entire process of mixing of raw material, preparation of dough, injecting of dough into the dye and thereafter baking of the biscuit is done mechanically, therefore, there is no possibility for any foreign body or hair to fall into the food product.  The final baked product including biscuit, rusks, bread etc. are thereafter wrapped into wrappers, even at this stage the baked products are checked with the help of trained supervisors to detect any trace of foreign body in the baked products.  It is only on confirming that no foreign body is present in the wrappers containing the baked product, that the wrappers/packets are placed in the cardboard boxes/cartons. It is averred that the origin and purchase of the said biscuit packet is suspects.  Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3]           OP No.3 also filed reply and admitted the sale of biscuit packet in question to the complainant, as alleged.  It is also admitted that the bill was not issued to the complainant for the said purchase.  It is further admitted that the complainant brought the matter in question in the notice of answering OP on the same day and he was asked to approach OPs NO.1 & 2 being the manufacturer. 

              It is stated that the answering OP had purchased the said packet in a sealed condition.  It is also stated that the OP No.1 & 2 are the manufacturer of the said biscuit packet and they are liable for the same.  All other allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4]           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]           We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6]           The sale of the biscuit packet in question, to the complainant, by OP No.3, manufactured by OPs NO.1 & 2, is admitted. 

7]           The main grouse of the complainant is that one of the biscuit of the said biscuit packet was containing human/animal hair, as a result, her daughter, who was consuming the said biscuit, started vomiting and remained sick for 3-4 days.

8]           On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for OPs NO.1 & 2 alleged that the entire process of mixing of raw material, preparation of dough, injecting of dough into the dye and thereafter baking of the biscuit is done mechanically; therefore, there is no possibility for any foreign body or hair to fall into the food product.  

9]           The main point that arises for consideration in this complaint is whether the allegation of deficiency in service, as alleged, has been proved, based on fact as well as of law?

10]         It is not disputed that the Packet of Britannia Good Day Biscuits (Lot NO.BO-31277 – Ann.C-1) is marketed & manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1 & 2.  

11]         When we look at the biscuit of said packet, we saw that one black hair/foreign object is mingled into it, which was clearly visible to the naked eye. The foreign object/black hair could have been mingled with the biscuit when the biscuits were manufactured.  It also appeared that there was no possibility for insertion of the foreign object in the biscuit by the complainant or by some other person at any stage.  Furthermore, the photographs showing the foreign object/black hair in the biscuit are also annexed as Ann.C-2 & C-3.  

12]         When the nature of the biscuit itself speaks about containing foreign object/black hair, hence, the product does not require lab test to ascertain whether it contains any foreign object.  The presence of the foreign object in the biscuits, visible to the naked eye, manufactured & marketed by OPs NO.1 & 2, makes it crystal clear that the OPs No.1 & 2 are surely/certainly ought to be held responsible for the deficiency in service & negligence committed by them, as is evident.

13]         Moreover, when the foreign object/black hair in the biscuit is visible to the naked eye, the complainant had discharged the initial onus on him to prove that there was something defect/foreign object in the biscuit.  However, after this, the onus shifted to the OPs NO.1 & 2 to prove, by way of laboratory test, that the biscuit was free from any defect or foreign object, as alleged.  Furthermore, directing the complainant to go for a laboratory test, in such a situation is of no help, to the OPs NO.1 & 2.  Reliance has been placed on United Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhubaneswar Nanda & Anr., I (2004) CPJ 118 (Orissa State Commission).

14]         The Opposite Party No.3 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.3 cannot be said to have committed any deficiency in service while selling those biscuits to the complainant.

15]         From the above discussion, it is proved that there was a wrongful act; an act or omission, causing breach of a legal duty and the violation of a legal right on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 towards the complainant.  Since, there has been violation of a legal right, the same is actionable; whether as a consequence thereof, the complainant/claimant has suffered any loss or not.  This is expressed by the maxim “Injuria sine damno.”  When there has been injuria or the violation of a legal right and the same has not been coupled with a damnum or harm to the complainant/claimant, he can still come to the court of law because no violation of a legal right should go unredressed.     

16]         Henceforth, judged from every angle, looking into the entirety of the case & factual position, we are of the firm opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of OPs NO.1 & 2 is proved & writ large.  Therefore, the complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs No.1 & 2 are jointly & severally directed as under:-

(1)   to refund Rs.25/- being the cost of the biscuits.

(2)   to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

(3)   to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

              This order be complied with by the OPs NO.1 & 2, jointly & severally, failing which they shall be liable to pay the said sum of Rs.10,025/- (Rs.25 + 10,000/-) with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 02.05.2012 till its actual payment, besides paying litigation costs as aforesaid. 

16]         The complaint as against Opposite Party No.3 is dismissed without costs.

17]         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.