1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 13.07.2021, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (the ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 505/2021, whereby the State Commission dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the Order dated 24.03.2021, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (the “District Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 21/2020.

2.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Commission. Mondelez India Foods Private Limited is identified as the Opposite Party No.1 (Petitioner herein). Kumar Swamy is identified as the Complainant (Respondent No.1 herein) and Brindavan General Store is identified as the Opposite Party No.2 (Respondent No.2 herein).

3.      The facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that on 10.01.2020, he purchased provisions, including four Cadbury Dairy Milk Crackle Chocolates, from OP- for a total of Rs.439, with each chocolate costing Rs.160. The transaction was documented vide Receipt No. 22283. Upon examining the chocolates at home, the Complainant found one chocolate (Batch No. K-91013 C10 PKD 10/2019) to be unfit for human consumption as it was damaged. He requested OP-2 to exchange the defective chocolate, but OP-2 refused. Consequently, the Complainant lodged a complaint seeking Rs.30,000 as compensation for the defective product and for the mental agony caused.

4.      In reply, filed before the District Forum, OP-1 acknowledged the purchase of chocolates by the Complainant but noted that only one batch number (K-91013 C10 PKD 10/2019) was mentioned in the complaint, and no details were provided for other three chocolates. The Complainant did not produce a sample of the defective chocolate for examination by OP-1 or a Food Laboratory.  OP-1 emphasized that the Complainant should have contacted them directly to address the defect, allowing OP-1 to examine the issue.  OP-1 highlighted its status as an international company known for manufacturing quality candy products. They follow rigorous safety protocols, including Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), ensuring raw materials are checked thoroughly before packing and dispatching to distributors. The Complainant did not use the grievance call system provided by OP-1.  OP-1 contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part and sought the dismissal of the complaint.

5.      Despite being served with notice, the Opposite Party No.2 remained absent and was placed ex-parte.

6.      The District Commission, vide Order dated 24.03.2021, partly allowed the complaint and directed as under:

“Order

1. The complaint of the complainant is greeted.

2. Within 30 days from this order opponent should give non-defective Cadburys diary milk chocolate in place of defective chocolate.

3. As compensation for mental stress experienced by the complainant Rs. 2,000/- to be given to the complainant within 30 days of this order, if failed to do so then 8% per annum interest to be paid from the date of this order till Rs. 2,000/- is paid.

4. The opponent should pay Rs. 500/- to complainant as expenses charges.

5. This order copy to be given to both the parties free of cost as per rules.    (Extracted from translated copy)

7.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner filed an Appeal and the learned State Commission vide order dated 13.07.2021 dismissed the Appeal with the following observations:             

“5. Heard the arguments of the learned Appellant. Issue of notice of this appeal on respondents hereby dispensed with.

6. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant apart from reiterating the grounds urged in the Memorandum of Appeal, contended that he is only Manufacturer and supplied the product properly and there is no allegation made against this Appellant. It is the liability of the Distributor to exchange the product purchased by the Customer, as the Distributor has not maintained the storage of the product properly.

7. Appellant/Manufacturer had supplied the Cadbury Dairy Milk Crackle Chocolate to its retailer viz., OP 2/Respondent 2 herein. Although 1 of the Cadbury Dairy Milk Crackles Chocolate among 4 Chocolates purchased by the Complainant was defective one, he approached OP2 for exchange of the same, who did not exchange the same. While supplying the product to the Consumer, there is mis- negligence and deficiency in service in so far as Cadbury Dairy Milk Chocolate is concerned by OP 2/ the Retail Distributor. On going through the reasons assigned in the Impugned Order, commission satisfied with the findings recorded by the District Commission in the matter by imposing liability both on Manufacturer & Seller of the product while awarding Compensation is proper. It cannot be said that liability is only on the Distributor not on the Manufacturer, since, till the product reaches the Consumer, there is vicarious liability on the Manufacturer also. Thus liability gets fixed equally, both on the Manufacturer as well as Seller.

  In the above circumstances, a reason assigned in the Impugned Order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed.

8. Amount in Deposit is ordered to be transfer to the District Commission, for disbursement to the Complainant.”

8.      Being aggrieved, OP-1 filed the present Revision Petition. In his arguments, the learned Counsel for Petitioner/OP-1 reiterated the grounds taken in the present Revision Petition and argued that the Impugned Order is arbitrary, capricious, and suffers from non-application of mind, failing to consider the pleadings, documents on record, and various judgments. The State Commission did not account for the Petitioner being a manufacturer, with OP-2 responsible for product storage.  The State Commission erroneously concluded that the manufacturer has vicarious liability until the product reaches the consumer. The District Commission erroneously concluded 'Deficiency in Service' and 'Unfair Trade Practice' without explicit pleadings by the complainant. They followed rigorous safety protocols, including Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), ensuring that raw materials are checked thoroughly before packing and dispatching to distributors. He sought to allow the present Revision Petition, set aside the impugned orders passed by the Fora below and dismiss the complaint.  He relied upon the following judgments:

i. Cardbury India Limited v. Rajanesh R. Swamy and Ors., 2009 (2) C.P.C. 715;

ii. Cadbury India Limited & Ors. V. A. Ramachandran Nair, R.P. No.4366 of 2009, decided on 07.10.2010 by the NCDRC;

iii. Cadbury India Limited & Ors. V. Kanteppa and Ors., MANU/CF/1039/2015;

iv. Cadbury India Limited and Ors. V. Grahak Parishad and Ors., MANU/CF/0159/2015;

v. Canon India Private Limited & Anr. V. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. RP No.1351 of 2015, decided on 24.08.2015 by NCDRC;

vi. Arun Kumar Pandey Major & Anr. Vs. Kamal Agencies, R.P. No.3236 of 2018, decided on 29.01.2019 by the NCDRC;

vii. TATA Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rajinder Kumar & Anr., FA No.766 of 2012, decided on 10.07.2019 by the NCDRC;

viii. Skoda Auto India P. Limited & Ors. V. Bhawesh Narula, R.P. No.1717 of 2014, decided on 03.08.2015 by the NCDRC;

ix. C.P. Sreekumar (Dr.), MS (Ortho) v. S. Ramanujam, (2009) 7 SCC 130.

9.      In her arguments, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Complainant reiterated the facts of the case and argued in favour of the concurrent findings of the Fora below. She sought to dismiss the Revision Petition with costs. She relied upon the judgment of this Commission in the case of Mondelez India Foods Private Ltd. Vs. Santosh Kumar Sharma & Anr., RP No.39 of 2024, decided on 18.01.2024.

10.    The Respondent No.2/OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.04.2024 passed by this Commission.

11.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned Counsels for both the Parties.

12.    The petitioner has not brought out anything substantial in the present Revision Petition other than asserting the liability, if any, of OP-2 in the matter as well las the credibility of the complaint that only one Batch No. (K-91013 C10 PKD 10/2019) was mentioned without details for other three chocolates and no sample of defective chocolate was produced for examination. The learned District Forum passed a well-reasoned order dismissing the complaint and the learned State Commission dismissed the Appeal by well reasoned order.

13.    It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. From the facts stated, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order of the learned State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

14.    Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as regards revisional Jurisdiction of NCDRC:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

15.    Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:- 

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

16.    Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed.

17.    The Petitioner/ OP-1 is directed to pay the complainant Rs.10,000 as costs of litigation.

18.    All pending Applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.