| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/15/174 of 19.8.2015 Decided on: 30.11.2015 Sh.Parminder Singh S/o Late Sh.Karnal Singh r/o H.No.455, Adarsh Colony, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus Lakshmi Namkeen, M/s Ditta Ram Nand Lal Manuacturers & suppliers of Sweets & Halwai Goods, Sirhindi Bazar, Patiala through its owner/Proprietor. …………….Op Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Navkiran Singh Sodhi, Advocate For Op : Exparte. ORDER D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT - It is the case of the complainant that on 5.8.2015 he had purchased three packets of Namkeen i.e. one packet of Disco Papdi mix namkeen, second packet of yellow moong dal namkeen and 3rd packet of Namkeen Pakodi/Semian (Basen Pakodi) from the Op under the impression that the Op is a supplier of a good quality of snacks (namkeen).When the complainant had taken the products purchased by him from the Op to his house, he found the packet of moong dal was printed with the ingredients of the same as : “pulse flour, peas, corn flakes , pea nuts, chana dal, common salt, edible oil, black pepper, dry ginger , clovemace, nutmeg, red chilly and cardamom ”, but there appeared only a yellow moong dal. Similarly he found the ingredients on the packet of namkeen pakoda (semian) as “ pulse flour, peas, corn flakes,pea nuts, chana dal, common salt, edible oil, black pepper, dry ginger, clovemace, nutmeg, red chilly and cardamom, murmara, sugar, glucose, but it was only a basen pakoda. Similarly he noted the ingredients printed on the packet of disco papdi mix namkeen as “moth and gram pulse flour, pea nuts, disco papdi, mutter, edible oil, Bishop’s weed, (ajwain),garlic powder,red chilly powder and common salt permitted synthetic food colour and added flavours but there appeared only disco papdi, peanuts and basen pakodis .
- It is further averred that when the complainant examined the packets, only the packets of disco papdi namkeen and basin pakoda namkeen contained the description of the nutrients and nothing was written about the same on the packet of moong dal namkeen. The nutrients given on the packets were of the same character except that on the packet of disco papdi the calories were written as 57.6. On the packet of basen pakoda , the price, batch number and net weight were not mentioned. On the packet of disco papdi namkeen the net weight was printed as 250 gms but on the light stamp, the same was written as 225 gm but the actual weight was found to be 212 gms. Similarly on the packet of the moong dal, the net weight was printed as 250 gms but the same was found to be 142 gms.
- It is further averred that the complainant approached the Op and pointed out the aforesaid deficiencies qua the unfair trade practice but the Op threatened the complainant that the Op is a big supplier and has got links with the Food Authority. He was insulted by the Op. It is alleged that the description of the ingredients given on the packets was mis leading and it had compulsorily to be mentioned on packets qua the price of the goods etc. On account of the act of the Op in not having complied with the provisions of the law in this regard resulted into the harassment and mental agony experienced by the complainant and therefore, it is alleged that the complainant is entitled to a compensation in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and accordingly he brought this complaint against the Op under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Op to pay him the compensation in a sum of Rs.2,50,00/- on account of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice; to pay him Rs.21000/- towards the costs of the complaint and further to provide him a sum of Rs.one lac by way of compensation on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him.
- The Op despite service failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
- In the exparte evidence, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith the documents Exs.C1 and C2 and his counsel closed the evidence.
- The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the evidence on record.
- Ex.C2 is the packet of the snacks sealed in a cardboard box when produced by the complainant at the time of entertaining the complaint on 20.8.2015 and today we have opened the same and the same is found having contained three packets one containing the snacks of moong Dal although on the packet it is not so recorded, the other packet is found having contained the snacks of basen pakode although nothing of the sort is written on the packet itself and the 3rd packet is found having contained the small pakoris of basin and on the packet it is printed ‘Disco Papdi Mix’.
- The grievance of the complainant is that the packet containing the snacks of moong dal bears the print regarding ingredients given as pulse flour, peas, corn flakes, peanuts, chana dal, common salt, edible oil, black pepper, dry ginger, clovemace, nutmeg, red chilly and cardamom but the said ingredients are not found in the packet and in that way it amounted to an unfair trade practice.
- Similarly it was submitted by Sh.N.K.Sodhi, the learned counsel for the complainant that in the other packet of basin pakodi, the ingredients have been recorded as “ pulse flour, peas, corn flakes, peanuts, chana dal, common salt, edible oil, black pepper, dry ginger, clovemace, nutmeg, red chilly, cardamom, murmare,sugar, glucose,but apparently the packet contains only pakodis of basin. Moreover the said packet does not contain any description about the weight, MRP and batch number of the manufacturer. This amounts to not only an unfair trade practice but a deficiency in service.
- Similarly Sh.Sodhi, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the 3rd packet of Disco Papdi Mix contains the description of the ingredients as “moth and gram pulse flour, peanuts, disco papdi, murmare, edible oil, Bishop’sweed, (ajwain), garlic powder, red chilly powder and common salt”, but it contains only the ingredients of basin paiodi, peanuts and disco papdi. It was submitted that on the packet “best before four months from the packaging date” has been written but the date of manufacturing has not been given and therefore, the same also amounted to an unfair trade practice as also a deficiency in service.
- Similarly it is the plea taken up by the complainant that the packets of snacks of Moong Dal and of Disco Papdi Mix contained less weight of the contents as against the weight printed on the same in as much as on the packet of Moong Dal , there is printed the weight of 150 gm but the same was found to be of 142 gms and in the case of the snacks of Disco Papdi Mix, packet is printed with the weight of 250 gms but the same was found to be of 212 gms. Here, it may noted that when the packets were weighed by us at the time of the admission of the complaint, the weight of the packet of the Disco Papdi Mix was found having contained the contents of 210 gms.
- Then, it was submitted by Sh.Sodhi, that on the packet of Disco Papdi Mix and basin pakode, the nutrition facts like total fat, standard fat, cholesterol, sodium, sugar , protein have been given but in the case of the packet containing the moong dal the same have not been described.
- However, when we asked the learned counsel for the complainant as to in compliance of which provisions of law the said nutrition facts have to be given, he could not help us in this regard but he submitted that it is a right of a consumer to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of the goods so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices. In this regard he placed reliance upon the citation Dr.Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Dir.Health Services, Haryana and others 2014(2) MPHt 1:2014(3) Mh.LJ 127:2014(3) M.P.L.J.28: 2013(4) Recent Apex Judgments(R.A.J.) 512: 2013(3) S.C.T.702:2013(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 942: 2013 AIR (SCW)4387:2013(3)P.L.J.R.(SC)345: 2013(5) Law Herald (SC) 3649: 2013 LIC 3412 :2013(9) Scale 103: 2013(4) CivCC 87: 2013(5) AIR Bom.R 793: 2013 AIR (SC)3060:2013(5) BCR 709 :2013(3) DNJ[SC] 667:2013(10) SCC 136 :2013(6) Mh.LJ 923:2014(1) RLW 315:2013(5) All MR 912: 2013(3) C.P.J.(SC) 22: 2014(1) CLR 667:2013(3) CPR(SC) 514: 2013 (3) CLT 455 :2013(3) JLJR(SC) 336: 2013(2) UAD 547:2013(4) JBCJ(SC) 21 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. He also placed reliance upon the citation Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn.& Anr Versus Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. 2009(3) AIR(Hjarkhand)990:2009 AIR(SCW)1502:2010(2)M.P.L.J.519:2009(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 412:2009(4) Recent Apex Judgments(R.A.J.) 66:2009(2) Scale 337 : 2009(3) SCC 240 :2009(3) CivCC 336:2009 AIR(SC) 1905:2009(3) ICC 659:2009(3) MLJ 504: 2009(2) All WC 1154 :2009(1) WLN(SC) 19:2009(3) KantLJ 353:2009(3) All.LJ 242:2009(3) WBLR 321:2009 DNJ[SC]333:2009(3) ALD(SC) 49:2009(1) C.P.R.211:2009(1) SCC (Civil)802: 2009(1) APLJ 94:2010(3) Mh.LJ 680:2009(3) C.P.J.(SC) 5:2009(1) CPR(NC) 211:2009(4) CLT 301 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India so as to submit that failure on the part of the Op to provide the necessary information regarding the batch number, net weight of the product, MRP on the packets of basen pakodi amounts to be a deficiency in service.
- We have considered the submissions and are of the considered view that the act of the Op in having recorded the ingredients of the products contained in the packet which are not to be found certainly amounts to an unfair trade practice because a manufacturer can not sell a product by misleading the consumers. Whatever is printed on the packet of the product about the items of the product must be found contained in the same orelse it is misleading.Similarly the failure on the part of the Op to make a mention of the net weight of the product,MRP and batch number amounts to a deficiency in service.
- However, when we asked the learned counsel for the complainant as to how the complainant has suffered any loss or injury because of the aforesaid unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the Op, it was submitted by Sh.Sodhi that a consumer has got a right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of the goods, so as to protect himself against unfair trade practices and the failure to provide the said information by the manufacture of a product amounts to deficiency in service. It was submitted by Sh.Sodhi that as provided under the proviso given to section 14(1)(d) the District Forum shall have the power to grant punitive damages as it may deem fit.
- We have considered the submissions and are of the considered view that the act of the Op in having made a misrepresentation of the ingredients of the product in the packets of namkeen Moong Dal, Disco Papdi Mix and even on basen pakoris amounts to an unfair trade practice and similarly the failure on the part of the Op to describe the net weight, MRP and batch number on the packet of basen pakode amounts to a deficiency in service. The failure on the part of the Op to give the date of the packing on the packets of basen pakode and Disco Papdi Mix also amounts to a deficiency in service. In the absence of the said information provided by the Op the consumer is left in the lurch because in the packet of Disco Papdi Mix it is recorded: “ Best before four months from the packing date” but the date of the packing is not mentioned on the packet. The consumer can not make a best use of the product in the absence of the date of the packing. The lapse on the part of the Op to mention the said facts i.e. the net weight, MRP, date of packing is a violation of rule 6(1) ( c ) and (f) of the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Packaged Commodities) Rules,1977 and rule 32(3)(e) and (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rule,1955. Under rule 6 ( c ) (f ) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rule,1977, the net quantity , in terms of the standard unit of weight or measure, of the commodity contained in the package or where the commodity is packed or sold by number, the number of the commodity contained in the package and the retail sale price of the packet have to be given on the packet containing the food articles. Under Rule 32 (3) (e) and (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rule,1955, batch number or code number or lot number which is a mark of identification by which the food can be traced in the manufacture and identified in the distribution, shall be given on the label and the date, month and year in which the commodity is manufactured packed or pre packed shall be given on the label provided that the month and the year of the manufacture packing or pre packing shall be given if the “Best Before Date” of the product is more than three months.
It appears that the Op has got different packets printed with the description of the ingredients of the products which are not actually packed and sold to the consumer and all this is being done to perpetuate unfair trade practice so as to mislead the innocent consumers. May be that consumer has suffered a marginal financial loss because of the less weight of the product in the two packets of Moong Dal and Disco Papri Mix but when the matter is viewed in larger perspective i.e. the packets are sold to hundreds and thousands of the consumers, the act of exploitation and unfair trade practice appears gigantic and therefore, the said unfair trade practice/deficiency in service has got to be curbed so as to ensure that a consumer is protected against the unscrupulous exploitations made by the Ops. We therefore, accept the complaint and direct the Op to pay a compensation in a sum of Rs.25000/-to the complainant and deposit a similar amount with the Consumer Forum in its Legal Aid account within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order. The amount of the compensation of Rs.25000/- is inclusive of the costs of the complaint. The packets of the snacks be returned to the complainant after the expiry of the period of the appeal and in case the appeal is preferred subject to the order to be passed in appeal. Pronounced Dated:30.11 .2015 Sonia Bansal D.R.Arora Member President | |
