Date of Filing : 20.05.2022
Date of Disposal : 26.10.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR., B.A., B.L., .....MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.COM.,ICWA (Inter),B.L., ......MEMBER-II
CC. No.33/2022
THIS WEDNESDAY, THE 26th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
P.Dillibabu,
No.2460, 3rd Main Road,
88th Street, LIG-II,
M.M.D.A.Maathur,
Chennai -600 068. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.The Manager,
ITC Limited, Food Division,
No.18, Banasvadi Main Road,
Maruthi Seva Nagar, Bangalore – 560005.
2.Arun Prasath,
Sri Murugan provision Store,
No.115, Kamarajar Salai,
Manali, Chennai -600 068. …..opposite parties
Counsel for the complainant : Party in Person.
Counsel for the opposite parties : exparte
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 03.10.2022 in the presence of Complainant who appeared in person and the opposite parties were set exparte for non appearance and for non filing of wirtten verson and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10 crores towards compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.100 crores towards fine to the opposite parties.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
The complainant submitted that he had purchased 20 to 25 Sun feast Marie light biscuit packets to feed animals. While so in the month of December when he purchased biscuits vie invoice No.1013, 55381, 53325, 53083, 54252, 53600, 26, 228, 54815, 912 and 55036 and when he opened the packets he found only 15 biscuits instead of 16 biscuits as printed on the wrapper/cover. When the opposite party was approached by the complainant they commented that why he was so aggrieved for cheated only 10 rupees as if he was cheated for 10 crores. Further it was submitted that in one packet it was described as 16 biscuits and each biscuit cost Rs.0.75p. Though it seems to be a meagre amount, the opposite parties per day manufacture and sells at least 1,00,00,000/-biscuits. As per calculation if one biscuit is less in each packet it amounts to 50,00,000/- biscuits less. On calculation approximately for three months sales as per version of the opposite parties a total amount to 29,06,25,000/- was cheated from the general public. Thus alleging misleading description, cheating the general public and ill-treating, the present complaint was filed by the complainant for the above mentioned reliefs.
On the side of the complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A9 was submitted. Material evidence produced by the complainant before this commission was marked as Ex.M1. In spite of sufficient notice and opportunities the opposite parties did not appear before this Commission and hence they were called absent and set ex-parte on 17.08.2022 for non appearance and for non filing of written version.
Points for consideration:-
Whether the alleged unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant against the opposite parties in selling Sunfeast Marie light biscuit packets has been successfully proved by the complainant with sufficient evidence?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point:1
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;
Sun feast Marie Light Biscuits cover with printed 16 biscuits was marked as Ex.A1;
Picture of the fifteen biscuits was marked as Ex.A2;
Bills was marked as Ex.A3;
Payment receipts was marked as Ex.A4;
Biscuits packets was marked as Ex.A5;
Old biscuits packets content was marked as Ex.A6;
New biscuits packets content was marked as Ex.A7;
Picture of the dogs was marked as Ex.A8;
Complaint against the opposite party was marked as Ex.A9;
We perused the pleadings and evidences produced by the complainant and heard the oral arguments advanced by him.
We also examined Ex.M1 the material evidence/biscuit packets produced by the complainant. The issue was only with regard to the number of biscuits and the total weight. This commission in the presence of the President and Members of the Commission along with two uninterested persons had examined the biscuit packets with Batch No.0502C36 and weighed the same and found only 15 biscuits in all the packets. Nearly 50 biscuit packets were purchased by the complainant from the 2nd opposite party and the total weight of the biscuits packets including the wrapper was found to have only 74 grams which were reduced into writing and marked as a report. The wrapper of the biscuits was marked as Ex.A1 which clearly shows that the packet contains 16 biscuits. We could also find that a star mark for “conditions apply” was also found and when we inspected with our naked eyes we could find that the condition apply found as “contain 16 biscuits in every 76 gms pack”. Ex.A2 shows that when the biscuit was unwrapped there were only 15 biscuits. The bills for purchase of the biscuits were marked as Ex.A4. An unwrapped biscuit packet was also produced as Ex.A5 showing that each contains 16 biscuits. The wrapper of old biscuits packets and the new biscuits packets were produced as Ex.A6 and Ex.A7.
On perusing the evidence and on examining the materials objects this commission could find that the allegation found in the complaint was proved successfully by the complainant/party in person by admissible evidence. The opposite parties also failed to appear and defend the allegation in the complaint. As we could apparently see that the allegations are true, this commission has no other option but to hold that the opposite parties had committed unfair trade practice by misleading the general public. As per the Consumer Protection Act’2019 Section 2 (47) unfair trade practice was defined as a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods of for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including practices like making any statement orally and writing which falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, compensation etc. This complaint very well comes within the definition of the ‘Complaint’ as per the section 2(6) wherein complaint refers any allegation in writing made by a complainant for obtaining any relief provided under the act that an unfair trade practice has been adopted by a trader or service provider. In this present case opposite parties being the trader had adopted unfair trade practice thereby had committed unfair trade practice to cheat the general public. Thus we answer the point accordingly holding that the opposite parties had committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and that the complainant had successfully proved by sufficient admissible evidence.
Point No.2:
With respect to reliefs to be granted the complaint had sought for Rs.100 crores fine to be imposed on the opposite parties and also sought for Rs.10 crores as compensation for the alleged act of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service committed by them. As the reliefs sought for by the complainant is exorbitant, this commission award a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to be payable to the complainant and also order the opposite parties to discontinue the selling of the disputed biscuits “Sunfeast Marie Light” with Batch No.0502C36 in the market. We also award a cost of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant to be payable by the opposite parties.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties 1& 2 directing them
a) to discontinue the selling of the disputed Biscuits “Sunfeast Marie Light” in Batch No.0502C36 with the specific endorsement;
b) to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;
c) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 26th day of October 2022.
-Sd- -Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 .............. Sunfeast Marie Light Biscuits cover with printed 16 biscuits . Xerox
Ex.A2 ............... Picture of the fifteen biscuits Xerox
Ex.A3 .............. Bills. Xerox
Ex.A4 ............ Payment receipts. Xerox
Ex.A5 ............... Biscuits packets. Xerox
Ex.A6 ........... Old biscuits packets content. Xerox
Ex.A7 ............ New biscuits packets content. Xerox
Ex.A8 ............ Picture of the dogs. Xerox
Ex.A9 ............ Complaint against the opposite party. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-
Nil
Court document:-
Ex.M1 03.10.2022 Report. original
-Sd- -Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
