PRESENT

          Complainant by Adv. Smt. Shital Dumralia present.

         Opponent by Adv. Shri.Yogesh S. Patki present.                                                         

                                      ORDER

(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President. )

1.The complainant a senior citizen filed complaint against Colgate Palmolive Company for adopting unfair trade practice as well as for publishing -leading advertisement in order to promote sale of the product.

2.The complaint was kept for hearing on the issue of admission in presence of Opposite Party. We have perused the contents of complaint and submission of Opposite Party. We have heard at length both sides on the issue of admitting the complaint.

3.According to Complainant all assurances given regarding the utility of the product are untrue, false and misleading. It is alleged that Opposite Party has indulged in a conduct inappropriate for ethical business.

4.The Complainant filed on record purchase bill, advertisement – “Colgate Sensitive Enamel Repair Toothpaste and screenshot of ASCI website”.

5.The Opponent submitted written notes for opposing the admission. The Opponent filed on record copy of complaint no. 463/2016, order dated 29.11.2016 in complaint no. 463/2016 and copy of order dated 19.12.2017 passed in complaint no. 89/2017.

6.The Complainant prayed compensation of Rs. One Only. The prayer is also made for punitive damages payable in Consumer Welfare Fund. The prayer is made for injunction to Opponent directing to stop manufacturing and sale of product and to issue corrective advertisement to the effect of misleading advertisement.

7.The Opponent alleged that on the issue of advertisement and use of product involved in this case has been decided by this forum in similar case. It is submitted that there is no evidence to show that said product failed to perform intended use. There is no evidence to prove that loss or injury was caused due to use of product.

8.The Complainant has claimed punitive damages beyond pecuniary limits stating that there is no pecuniary limit for awarding the punitive damages. This submission is not supported by law or any Judgment of Hon’ble Court.

9.The law laid down under section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stipulates that Complainant has to produce expert evidence in support of allegations made in the Complaint. There is no such evidence on record.

10.The Complainant filed complaint against on similar grounds and said complaints were dismissed by the forum.

11.In order to determine effect of use of said product and to determine compensation as alleged i.e. punitive damages, recording of evidence is necessary. The nature of complaint in fact is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. There is no prima facie evidence to show that any injury was caused due to said product.

12.Considering all facts and submissions of parties we pass order.  

ORDER

1. Complaint is dismissed under section 12 (3) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.