DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th day of March, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

             : Smt.Vidya A., Member                       

             : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member         Date of filing: 07/01/2021   

CC/3/2021

Vince.M.J

S/o M.J.John, 23/1087

Near Fort Maidan (P.O), Palakkad                                                                

(By Adv. M.P.Ravi)                                                  -         Complainant

                                                           V/s

1. Margin Free Market, 15/2777

    Court Road, Palakkad

    (By Adv. U.Suresh)

2. Pannivelil Industries, Pannivelil Farms

    Door No: 1/235, Near Village Office

    Navakkarai (P.O), Coimbatore – 641 105

    (By Adv. C.P.Ashok Kumar)

3. The Assistant Commissioner of Food Safety

Civil Station, Palakkad                                            -         Opposite parties

(Ex-parte)

O R D E R

By Smt. Vidya.A, Member

1.  Pleadings of the complainant in brief

      Complainant is a regular customer of the 1^st opposite party.  On 18/12/2020 he went to the 1^st opposite party and purchased edible oil which is manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.  He purchased coconut oil, 1 litre by brand name ‘Parachute’.  The pouch was covered by a plastic wrapper which obstructed the visibility of the wordings imprinted on the pouch.  This caused inconvenience to him as he was unable to read the imprinted words.  The 2^nd opposite party is bound to exhibit the details of the product in the outer cover making it clearly visible and legible. 

          The acts of the opposite parties in covering the imprintment are against law and they are not supposed to do this.  This amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

          The 3^rd opposite party being a regulatory authority is bound to inspect and prohibit the sale of the product.  Complainant lodged a complaint with the 3^rd opposite party; but no action was taken in this regard.

          So he approached this Commission for getting an order

1. Directing the 3^rd opposite party to prohibit and confiscate the goods manufactured and sold by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.
2. Directing the 2^nd opposite party to imprint the required details in the outer cover clearly and legibly as prescribed in law.
3. Directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation together with 12% from the date of complaint.
4. To pay the entire cost and such other reliefs which the Commission finds fit and proper to grant.

2.   The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.

          The 1^st opposite party contended that they sold the product as supplied by the 2^nd opposite party and they did not do anything against law.  They are unnecessary party to the proceedings and the complaint has no cause of action against them.  There is no deficiency in service or unhealthy trade practice on their part.   

3.   The 2^nd opposite party contended that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act.  The alleged cause of action falls either under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 and the rules framed there under or the Legal Metrology Rules 2011.  On that account also, the complaint is not maintainable.

          They admit that the pouch of the oil is covered by a plastic wrapper; but denied the allegation that the said wrapper obstructs the visibility of the wordings imprinted on the pouch.  To maintain hygiene and reducing the effect of one pouch leakage on other pouches, the pouches are wrapped in a transparent wrapper which can easily be removed upon reaching the retailer or consumer.  For transportation convenience, the other pouch is made of transparent material through which declarations on the pack are easily visible and readable. The font size used to give key declarations like Use before, MRP, Net Quantity, Consumer Feedback details in 5mm are large enough for a reasonable person to read.  The cover also has a handle which makes it easy to carry.  It is admitted that the ‘Parachute’ oil pouch manufactured and supplied with the wrapper as mentioned above.  Opposite parties are strictly following all the rules and regulations made by the Government of India under the Legal Metrology or the FSS regulation and has not violated any regulations.  Both the rules and regulations clearly permits a manufacturer to put a wrapper on the package and is not mandated to put any declarations on such wrapper provided the declaration in the inner pack are easily readable through such outside wrapper.  2^nd opposite party did not receive any notice or proceedings from 3^rd opposite party.  There is no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed.  Complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.        

4.   The 3^rd opposite party contended that the complainant or any other person had not submitted any complaints before him.  The product was manufactured and packed in the state of Tamil Nadu.  He inspected the margin free market after getting notice from this Commission; but there was no stock of this coconut oil pouches.  As per their stock records, the products were already sold out on 06/01/2021.  The complainant had not produced any evidence to prove that the product is substandard quality.  The complaint is only about the inconvenience caused by the outer cover of the pouch on the visibility of the wordings printed on the original cover.  Some oil manufacturers use an outer cover for their edible oil pouches to avoid leakage of oil on transit.  As per Sec.2.3.1.4 of Food Safety and Standards regulations 2011, “Where a package is provided with an outside container or wrapper, such container or wrapper shall also contain all the declarations which are required to appear on the package except where such container or wrapper itself is transparent and the declaration on the package are easily readable through such outside container or wrapper”.

5.   From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable under Consumer protection Act in view of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanism available under Food, Safety and Standards Act and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities Rules)?
2. Whether the outer cover of the oil obscures the markings and writings on the package as alleged by the complainant?
3. Is there any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2?
4. If so, whether the inaction on the part of 3^rd opposite party against opposite parties 1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service on his part?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
6. Reliefs as to cost and compensation.

6.   Complainant filed proof affidavit and produced a packet of coconut oil as M.O.  Exts. A1 & A2 marked.  M.O returned after taking down the details.  Later the complainant produced another cover along with oil in pouch.  The two covers (along with oil) are examined by the Commission and a mahazar is prepared noting it as M.O1 and M.O2.  2^nd opposite party filed proof affidavit.  Evidence of 2^nd opposite party is rejected as it purports to be a cover, the same as used in the package produced by the complainant since the package of complainant itself form part of evidence.  Complainant and 2^nd opposite party filed notes of argument.  Heard.   

7.  Point No: 1

      Eventhough an Alternate Disputes Resolution Mechanism is available under other Acts, as per S.100 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.  So the complaint is maintainable before this Commission under the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as per Consumer Protection Act.

8.  Point No: 2

      The complainant’s main grievance is that the ‘Parachute’ coconut oil one-litre pouch which he purchased from the 1^st opposite party and manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party is covered with a plastic wrapper obstructing the visibility of the wordings imprinted on the pouch.

          The 2^nd opposite party denied this.  They contended that additional plastic wrapper is permissible under law to be used over the product as per the Food Safety Standard (Labelling & Display) Regulations 2011.  It is used to ensure safety and protection of pouch during conveyance and transportation.  It is used to avoid leakage and additional plastic transparent wrapper provided is as permitted by law.  The plastic wrapper used is transparent enough to read the wordings on the pouch.

9.   The pouch was produced before the Commission which is marked as MO1.  “Its parameters are as herein below as noted by this Commission.  Quantity – 1 L (910g)

Price – Rs. 190/-

Lot No: UUI2H

Mfg – May 2022

Use by – February 2023”

“The package is covered by an outer covering of transparent sealed plastic cover.”  

    In the mahazar dated 01/12/2022, it is noted that “The cover is transparent, yet not so transparent.  Details under the cover on the oil pouch can be read clearly, if the cover is brought in contact with the pouch.”

    So as per our observation, the details in the cover on the oil pouch can be read clearly.  Eventhough the outer cover is not so transparent; it does not obscure the writings in the pouch.  Point No: 2 is decided accordingly.

10.    Point No: 3

      The complainant’s only grievance is regarding obstruction in reading the words printed in the oil pouch due to its covering by a plastic wrapper.  He has no complaints about its quality or any other things.  In view of the conclusion arrived at in Point No: 2, the writings are visible.  So there is no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2. 

11.    Point No: 4

      As per 3^rd opposite party’s version, he did not receive any complaints from the complainant or any other person.  Further he inspected the margin free market (1^st opposite party) on receiving notice from this Commission.  But there was no stock of this coconut oil pouches and as per their records, the products were already sold out on 06/01/2021.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of 3^rd opposite party.

12.    Points 5 & 6

      In view of the findings in Points 3 & 4 there is no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.  So the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.                                   

Pronounced in open court on this the 30^th day of March, 2023.

                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                    Vinay Menon V

                                                                               President 

                                                       Sd/-

              Vidya.A

                             Member

                                                                                             Sd/-                                                                                                

                                                                                  Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                           Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext. A1: Bill issued by the opposite party dated 18/12/2020.

Ext. A2: Bill issued by the opposite party.

MO1    : A cover (along with oil).

MO2    : Another cover (along with oil in pouch).

Both the MO’s were returned to the complainant after entering in Mahazar.

Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: Nil

Witness examined from the complainant’s side: Nil

Witness examined from the opposite parties side: Nil

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.