Delhi

StateCommission

A/36/2015

J.P. SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DABUR INDIA LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Nov 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 03.11.2016

 

First Appeal No. 36/2015

(Arising out of the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in complaint case No. 215/13)

 

        In the Matter of:

               

          Jagdish Prasad Sharma

          S/o Late Baij Nath

          R/o B-511, Navjeevan Camp

          Govindpuri, Kalkaji,

          New Delhi-110019

……Appellant     Versus   1. The Managing Director Dabur India Ltd. Regd. Office and consumer Cell 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002   2. Dabur India Ltd. Kashambi Sahibad 201010 Ghaziabad   3. Rana Medicose R/o 15/165A, (basement) Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019                                                                                  …….Respondents

CORAM

  Justice Veena Birbal, President

  Salma Noor, Member

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Salma Noor, Member

1.             This is an appeal filed against order dated 04.12.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kashmere Gate, Delhi  in Complaint Case No. 215/13 wherein the complaint of the appellant/complainant was dismissed by the District Forum.

2.             Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the appellant/complainant herein filed the present appeal.

3.             The grievance of the appellant/complainant is that he had purchased two bottles of honey from respondent-3/OP-3 which was manufactured by Dabur India Ltd i.e. respondent-1/OP-1. It was alleged by the appellant/complainant that the bottles contained honey which was impure which is evident from the fact that the contents had coagulated (condensed) at the bottom of the bottles. On the aforesaid ground the appellant/complainant had filed the complaint before the District Forum.

4.             Notice was issued to the respondents/OPs.

5.             Respondent-3/OP-3 appeared and admitted in the written statement that bottles of honey were purchased from his shop. Respondent-1 & 2/OPs-1 & 2 also appeared and contested the complaint and stated that the appellant/complainant might have purchased a spurious product which was not manufactured by it and also denied that the bottles purchased by the appellant/complainant contained honey manufactured by them. They also stated that there was no evidence that the honey contained in the two bottles was impure or had been contaminated. It had also stated that the appellant/complainant was required to comply with the requirements of Section 13(1)(C) of the Consumer Protection Act and file an record a report from a competent laboratory as regards purity or otherwise of the product and  prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6.             Both the parties filed evidence by way of affidavits.

7.             After hearing the arguments of both the parties the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant.

8.             Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Ld. District Forum the appellant/complainant has filed this appeal.

9.             We have heard appellant and counsel for respondent and perused the material on record.

10.            The appellant has challenged the order on the ground that he requested the District Forum both in writing and orally to seize the bottle and send the same for examination to the competent laboratory to see its purity. To see the bonafide of the appellant/complainant we requisitioned the record from the District Forum and carefully gone through the record. We find no material placed on record that any request was made by the appellant/complainant in this regard. It is true that appellant/complainant has moved an application before this Commission for sending the bottles for laboratory lest at the time of filing of the appeal but in our view now it is too late to send the bottles for Laboratory test as more than 3 years have been passed after purchasing of the honey bottles. Further the bottles although remained in his possession.

11.            At the time of arguments the appellant/complainant sticked to his sole stand that honey is impure which is evident from the fact that contents had coagulated at the bottom of the bottle, and it does not happen in the case of pure honey. Appellant/complainant has stated that he is stating so from his own experience. Even at the appeal stage appellant has failed to place on record any book/authority to substantiate his stand that pure honey does not coagulate even in winter. His arguments are based on his own experience in the field. Neither he has filed any report from any competent laboratory to prove his contention that honey contained in the bottle purchased by him was impure. On the other hand, respondents- 1 & 2/OP- 1 & 2 have placed on record an extract regarding coagulation/crystallization of honey. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:

“Crystallization of Honey Khalil Hamdan Apeldoorn, the Netherlands.”

“_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 

“Crystallization of honey is little understood by the consuming public. Many assume that honey appears crystallized to be an adulterated or unnatural product. That is not so. Actually, crystallization process is natural and spontaneous. Most pure raw or unheated honey has a natural tendency to crystallize over time. Crystallization does not affect the honey except for colour and texture. Crystallized honey is not spoiled and preserves the flavour and quality characteristics of the liquid honey. Some honey users like it in this state since it is easy to spread on bread or toast without dripping off and the taste is richer.  

Bear in mind that crystallization of honey has no bearing on its quality, but it is an attribute of pure and natural honey.

Why honey crystallizes?

        Honey is an highly concentrated sugar solution. It contains more than 70% sugars and less than 20% water. There is much sugar in honey relative to the water content. This means that the water in honey contains an extra amount of sugar than it could naturally hold. The overabundance of sugar makes honey unstable.”

12.            In view of the above discussion, we find no force in the contention of the appellant/complainant. No illegality is seen in the impugned order. Appeal is dismissed.

                A copy of this order be sent to parties free of costs as well as to District Forum. The record of the District Forum shall sent back forthwith. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member