THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF MARCH, 2023
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
REVISION PETITION NO.220/2018
M/s Britannia Industries Ltd.
Regd.office at: No.5/1A,
Hungerford street, Kolkata-700017
Executive Office at: ...Petitioner/s
Prestige Shanthiniketan,
The Business Precinct,
Tower-C, 16&17th Floors,
Whitefield Main road,
Mahadevapura post,
Bengaluru-560048
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
(By Shri/Smt.Kapil Dixit, Advocate)
V/s
- M.E.Hali S/o M.A.Esoof,
Haligattu village & post,
Ponnampet, Virajpet Tq.,
Kodagu District
….Respondent/s
- Shashidharan
General Merchant,
Gonikoppal town, Virajpet Taluk,
Kodagu District
O R D E R
BY SMT.SUNITA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
The Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 has filed this Revision Petition being aggrieved by the 0rder dated 01.09.2018 passed in CC.No.35/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kodagu.
2. The brief fact of the complaint is that, the complainant had purchased a biscuit pack of Britannia Marie Gold from the shop of the 2nd Opposite Party vide Bill No.1344 and as per the recital in the said pack, the weight of the consignment is 100gms. However, when it was weighed, it was noticed by the OP No.1 that it was weighing only 82gms. Instead of 100gms as mentioned in the packet and the difference in the weight was informed to OP No.2 on the same day by the OP No.1 and alleging deficiency of service the OP No.1 filed a complaint before the Forum at Madikeri on 13.07.2017 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the appellant further stated that alleging deficiency of service.
3. The appellant filed their version on 12.12.2017 denying the compliant averments contending that there are a lot of spurious/look alike products available in the market which do not conform to the statutory standards and the product in question may be one of such products since they have not been able to analyze the product available at their end. The Complainant/Opposite Party No.1 has never produced the packet in question for its examination to ascertain the actual weight of the same. Except alleging short weightage of the packet by the Complainant/OP No.1, no other cogent material is produced to establish and substantiate his claim. On this ground alone, the Compliant is sustainable under the eye of law and deserves to be dismissed as the Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the compliant when there is alternative remedy already available.
4. The product shall be released to market for consumption only after the product is found to be certified in all respects and approved for sale by their quality control Department and by the competent authority. They have a Daily Quality indexing System whereby a Final Quality evaluation of every batch of biscuit produced is performed and that batch of biscuit is released for market consumption only after full satisfaction of meeting the specific standards and prays to dismiss the compliant.
5. After trial, the District Commission on 01.09.2018 passed an order to issue notice to Opposite Party No.1/Appellant to produce the Register maintained in their office with regard to the product manufactured in the month of June, 2017 which shall be contained the lot number.
6. Aggrieved by this order, the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 has preferred this Revision petition. In spite of granting sufficient opportunities, Both parties have not submitted the arguments.
7. Perused the Revision Petition and order passed by the District Commission dated 01.09.2018. We noticed that the Respondent had produced alleged sample biscuit Britannia Marie Gold packet before District Commission on 22.07.2017, but, the same was not recorded in the order sheet. After issuing the fresh notice to the Revision Petitioner, the Revision Petitioner present before the District Commission on 01.09.2018 and disputed the sample produced by the Respondent/Complainant. Hence, as per Section 13 of the CP Act, it was necessary to analyze the sample biscuit packet. The District Commission had issued notice to Revision Petitioner to produce the register maintained in their office with regard to the product manufactured in the month of June, 2017 which shall contain the lot number.
8. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, we do not find any irregularities in the order of the District Commission as because the Complainant/Respondent alleged defect in the product which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of goods. If the product is disputed by the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party, then it is necessary to follow the procedure mentioned in CP Act as per Section 13. Now, Section 38(c) of the CP Act, 2019. The Revision Petitioner in its petition contended that the Complainant/Respondent has to file a complaint before the Director, Controller of any Legal Metrology Officer with regard to his case as per Section 15 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009. But the Complainant/Respondent has filed a complaint under Consumer Protection Act which is not maintainable.
9. Perused the Appeal Memo and the order passed by the District Commission, there is difference in actual and printed weight on the packet was not negligible which was a permissible which comes under unfair trade practice. Hence, it comes under the purview of the CP Act and also the CP Act is an alternative remedy to the consumers. Hence, it is not necessary to file a complaint before the Director, Controller of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 for his grievance. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, the Revision Petition fails. Hence, the following;
O R D E R
The Revision Petition is dismissed.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
SP*
