Haryana

Panchkula

CC/245/2014

VIVEK SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MONDELEZ INDIA FOOD LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PIYUSH MITTAL.

27 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                         

Consumer Complaint No	:	245 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	26.11.2014
Date of Decision	:	27.03.2015

 

Vivek Singh S/o Sh.Parakash Singh, R/o House No.1214/B, Sector-4, Panchkula.

                                                                                                            ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.         Mondelez India Foods Limited (Formerly Cadbury India Ltd.) Mondelez House Unit No.2001, 20^th Floor, Tower-3 (WingC), Indiabulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai-400013, India through its Managing Director.

            2^nd Address:

            Hanbast No.199, Village Sandholi Baddi, Tehsil-Nalagarh, Baddi, Solan-173205 through its Managing Director.

2.         Anand Stores, Sr. Booth No.68, Sector-4, Panchkula, Haryana through its Proprietor.

                                                                                                            ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:                    Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                        Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                        Mr.Anil Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:         Mr.Piyush Mittal, Adv., for the complainant. 

Mr.Saurabh Gautam, Adv., for the Op No.1.

Op No.2 already ex-parte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

The complaint has been filed by Vivek Singh-complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that on 20.09.2014, the complainant visited the shop of Op No.2 who assured that the chocolate products of Op No.1 were of the best quality available in the market and was a world renowned company in chocolate products. On the assurance of Op No.2, the complainant purchased a Cadbury Dairy Milk Silk Chocolate for Rs.150/- vide memo No.554 (Annexure C-1) dated 21.09.2014. The minor child of the complainant opened the packet & ate a piece of chocolate and told that the chocolate was emanating foul smell, tasted very bad. The complainant was surprised to see that the chocolate was soiled, emitting foul smell and was of very bad taste. The complainant informed the OP No.2 that the abovesaid chocolate was emanating foul smell. The Op No.2 also smelled the chocolate and confirmed that the said chocolate was emanating foul smell and the packet contained a defective/inferior quality chocolate. The date of packing was mentioned as 5/14 and the product was fit for consumption best before 12 months from packaging. The complainant asked the Op No.2 for refund of the amount of Rs.150/- who refused to refund the same. The Op No.2 also refused to replace the defective quality chocolate with other chocolates and asked to contact Op No.1. The complainant registered his complaint vide complaint No.1061506 on toll free No.1800227080 but to no avail. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

The Op No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement. It is submitted that it is not established that the product in question belonged to Op No.1 and no link established that the product was sold to complainant by authorized distributor of Op No.1. It is submitted that the bill did not mention about Batch No./PKD of the product. It is submitted that in the bill, date was mentioned as 21.09.2014 whereas the complainant in his complaint mentioned that the chocolate was purchased on 20.09.2014. It is submitted that at the time of selling the product, the producer issued warranty under FSSAI Act and the retailer or distributer was to sell the same under cash memo mentioning the nature of the quality but in the present case, neither warranty nor cash memo has been produced to establish that the abovesaid product was manufactured by the Op No.1. It is submitted that there are many counterfeiters in the market. It is submitted that the sample of chocolate was sent for analysis before the Food Analyst, Haryana who gave its report (Annexure C-4) that “sample is free from fungs, but the wrapper is giving rancid odour” but there was no rancidity at the time of manufacture of the product. It is submitted that milk fat from sterling agro was used in the product (Annexure R1/2) and manufacturing date of sale was March and April, 2014 with shelf life of 12 months. Further, Op No.1 has conducted fat analysis test and the same was found to be 0.26% and 0.20% when checked at plant at incoming stage which was within limit of specs of 0.3% (Annexure R1/3). It is submitted that the Op No.1 kept control sample of the product and has conducted sensory test before releasing the product. It is denied that the rancid smell was due to manufacturing defect but the same was due to defective storage either by the retailer or by improper handling by the consumer. It is submitted that if chocolates were exposed to high temperature/direct sunlight due to improper storage, there were chances that the wrapper might produce foul smell. It is also submitted that the chocolate was not sent for analysis in sealed condition.  It is submitted that the report of Food Analyst confirmed that the product was free from fungus and rancid smell was emanating only from the wrapper which was due to improper storage and handling and has nothing to do with manufacturing defect. It is submitted that in order to provide adequate protection to the chocolates, the Op No.1 provided the retailers with dispensers and visi-coolers. It is submitted that the sales staff of Op No.1 continuously visited the retailers and educated them on the care required for storing chocolates in a cool and tidy place as chocolates have a propensity to get heat damaged, infested and absorb strong smells. It is submitted that the Op No.1 formally advised the retailers to rotate their stocks on the ‘first in first –out’ basis to ensure freshness of the product. It is submitted that the Op No.1 mentioned the storage condition for the product on the label as “STORE IN A COOL, HYGIENIC AND DRY PLACE”. It is submitted that if chocolates were not stored in ambient conditions or exposed to extreme climate variation, they developed fat bloom so, there was no manufacturing defect in the product. It is submitted that the Op No.1 accepted HACCP (Hazard Analysis & Critical control Points) programme, which is the most comprehensive food safety system to ensure their products are free from any physical, chemical and microbiological contamination. It is submitted that before dispatching the product, the SKU was checked for seal integrity to rule out any chances of contamination in the chocolates. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Notice was issued to Op No.2 through process server and the service of Op No.2 was effected. But none has appeared on behalf of Op No.2 and the Op No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 07.01.2015.

Both the parties have adduced their evidence. The counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence. Counsel for the Op No.1 has tendered in evidence affidavit Annexure R1/A alongwith documents Annexure R1/1 to R1/5 and closed the evidence.

After filing the complaint when the case was fixed for consideration on the admissibility of the complaint, the counsel for the complainant has filed an application for sending the product i.e. Cadbury Dairy Milk Silk Chocolate in laboratory analysis for testing the quality of product in question which was sent to Public Analyst State Food Water and Excise Laboratory, Govt. of Haryana, Sector-11, Chandigarh by this Forum on 01.12.2014 for testing the same. On 07.01.2015, the report of Public Analyst State Food Water and Excise Laboratory, Govt. of Haryana had been received (Annexure C-4) in which it was mentioned that “the sample of chocolate is discolored. The wrapper was giving rancid odour where as it should be free from the same”.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.

The complainant purchased a Cadbury Dairy Milk Silk Chocolate for Rs.150/- on 20.09.2014 but in the retail invoice (Annexure C-1), the date is mentioned as 21.09.2014 instead of 20.09.2014. But he failed to point out whether he asked the Op No.2 to correct the date in the invoice or not. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that when the minor child of the complainant ate a piece of chocolate, he told that the chocolate was emanating foul smell and taste was very bad. The complainant first time registered the complaint vide complaint No.1061506 on toll free No.1800227080. The complainant has not mentioned any date on which he made the complaint. On the lable, the date of packing was mentioned as 05/14 and the same was fit for consumption best before 12 months. The complainant purchased the chocolate on 21.09.2014 (as per Annexure C-1) as alleged that it was not consumable, it may be possible due to defective storage and improper handling by the complainant. The complainant has filed the complaint on 26.11.2014 after passing of two months from the date of purchase. It is also cleared from the Food Analysis’ report (Annexure C-4) that the wrapper was giving rancid odour. The complainant has failed to prove that he stored it in refrigerator. The complainant has also failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence for not approaching this Forum immediately or any lab for testing the same.

For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the complaint is meritless and the same is dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.  

 

Announced

27.03.2015           ANIL SHARMA ANITA KAPOOR           DHARAM PAL

                             MEMBER             MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

           

                                               

                                                                        DHARAM PAL

                                                            PRESIDENT