1.      Heard Mr. Sidharth Bawa, Advocate, for the appellant. The respondent has sent a letter dated 30.11.2021, stating therein that the case be decided on the basis of the papers already filed by him.

2.      This appeal has been filed from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra dated 16.03.2015, passed in CC/106/2002, allowing the complainant and holding the appellant as guilty of committing negligence in preparing the bread and directing to pay/deposit Rs.2.51 lacs, as the compensation. 

3.      The respondent filed CC/106/2002, for compensation of Rs.7.51 lacs along with interest @18% per annum w.e.f. 16.04.2001. It has been stated in the complaint that Dr. Surendra Ramkishan Dhelia (the complainant) was a medical practitioner. Britannia Industries Limited (the opposite party) was a Public Limited Company and manufacturer of the various food items. The opposite party manufactured bread in brand name “Britannia Premium Bake Super Soft Deluxe Bread” and sold it, in the market. The complainant purchased one packet of “Britannia Premium Bake Super Soft Deluxe Bread” on 15.04.2001, for his guests including one child at his residence. When that bread was served to them for consumption, then the complainant noticed that few plastic pieces embedded inside several slices. The complainant prevented his guests from consuming the bread. The complainant lodged a complaint on 16.04.2001, on telephone at the Mumbai office of the opposite party. On 16.04.2001 at 3:40 PM, one Mr. A.C. Luis, an officer of the opposite party, came to the residence of the complainant. On examination of the slices of the bread, he confirmed that there were plastic pieces. Thereafter, he went back and again came at 5:45 PM, along with one Tendulkar. Both of them again checked the bread in the said packet and confirmed that there were plastic pieces inside the slices. However, they refused to give writing in this respect at that time. They assured that they would again come on next day along with their Senior Officer. Mr. A.C. Luis along with one Karamkar, Standard Manager and one Maniyar, Production Manager of the company came on 19.04.2001. Once again they inspected the bread and the packet and confirmed existence of plastic pieces in the bread. They collected few slices from the complainant. On the complainant insistence they gave a hand written receipt, acknowledging the fact of having taken the same with a note “prima facie paper like body was seen in number of slices”. They informed that this sample would be analysed in laboratory and the report would be given to him. The complainant received a letter dated 18.05.2001, signed by Karmakar and in the last portion of this letter he has written that “It is possible that during production, new unchecked mould might have found its way without cleaning by air-blast, which is the rarest of the incidence”. The complainant received another letter dated 31.05.2001, signed by Karmakar, mentioning therein that in spite of repeated analysis at couple of times, authentic reports on the genuineness have not been reported. When the complainant made further correspondence with the officers of the opposite party, then, they vide letter dated 08.06.2001, disowned the packet of the bread, being the packet of the opposite party. A copy of ‘analysis report’ was also sent to the complainant. The complainant, vide letter dated 02.07.2001, lodged the protest against the analysis report. Thereafter, no reply was given to the complainant. The complaint was filed on the allegations that the opposite party has committed negligence in manufacture of bread.    

4.      The opposite party filed its written reply and contested the complaint. It has been stated that the opposite party is a multinational company of repute, which was awarded ISO 9002, status of M/s. TUV Management Services Gmbh. The opposite party follow most modern and state of art procedure for preparing bread and other product in its factory, maintaining highest standard and ensure best quality of bread. The opposite party maintains moisture, fat, salt, protein, fortification with soya, sugar, and softness contents in ratio of particular standard. The bags used for packaging the bread are checked for the printed matter on the wrapper, the grammage of the wrapper, any objectionable odour and sealing. The opposite party has an in-house laboratory, manned by trained personnel. As soon as the opposite party received the complaint of the complainant, Sales Officer, Mr. A.C. Luis was instructed to attend the complainant immediately. Mr. A.C. Luis and Mr. Tendulkar visited the complainant in the evening. They were not satisfied about the genuineness of the product. They wanted to collect the sample of the bread, which was not agreed by the complainant. The opposite party, then deputed Mr. Karmakar, Standard Manager and Mr. Maniyar, Production Manager, on 19.04.2001, who visited the complainant. The complainant allowed them to take few slices of the bread. On testing, these breads were found as not matching with the standard of the contents maintained by the opposite party in its bread as such the report was submitted that these breads were not manufactured by the opposite party. The complainant was informed in this respect vide letter dated 31.05.2001, later on a copy of the report was also supplied to him. They denied that the letter dated 18.05.2001, was written by Karmakar or signed by him.     

5.      State Commission, by the impugned order found that the opposite party carried out test of the sample bread at its own laboratory that too after about one month as such this report is not reliable. The officers of the opposite party were satisfied with the wrapper of the bread belonged to the company, before taking the sample. Which was confirmed from the letter dated 18.05.2001 written by Karmakar. In such circumstances, affidavit of the complainant was believed and it was held that the opposite party was guilty of committing negligence in the manufacture of the bread.

6.      I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and examined the record. A perusal of the records, shows that the complainant neither produced the wrapper of the bread nor sample of the bread for its analytic report before State Commission. The burden of proof was upon the complainant to prove that (i) The contaminated bread was manufactured by the appellant and (ii) In this bread, foreign materials (plastic pieces) were found.

7.      State Commission based its findings on (i) as the officers of the appellant had collected the sample as such they were satisfied that the product belonged to the appellant and (ii) in the letter of Karmakar dated 18.05.2001, he had admitted the possibility of new unchecked mould might have found its way without cleaning by air-blast, during production. These two circumstances were not sufficient to record a finding that the appellant had manufactured contaminated bread. The report of the appellant has been ignored as it was tested in its own laboratory. On visual examination, some suspicion was noted by Karmakar and on its basis forming opinion relating to contamination is not sufficient. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that the bread sold to the complainant contained plastic pieces, as alleged by the complainant, as such negligence on the part of the appellant is not proved.    

O R D E R

          In the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of State Commission dated 16.03.2015, passed in CC/106/2002, allowing the complainant, is set aside. The complaint is dismissed. If the appellant has deposited any amount before this Commission, it may be returned to the appellant, along with accrued benefits.