STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :       383 of 2015

Date of Institution:       28.04.2015

Date of Decision :        08.05.2015

Vivek Singh s/o Sh. Parakash Singh, Resident of House No.1214/B, Sector-4, Panchkula presently residing at H.No.499, First Floor, Sector-25, Panchkula. 

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

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

          2^nd Address

Hadbast 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.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Manbir Singh Rathi, Advocate for appellant.

                                                   O R D E R

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal of unsuccessful complainant is directed against the order dated March 27^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Panchkula, whereby complaint No.245 of 2014, filed by him was dismissed.

2.      Vivek Singh-complainant (appellant herein) purchased a Cadbury Dairy Milk Silk Chocolate for Rs.150/- vide receipt Annexure C-1 on September 21^st, 2014. According to the complainant, when he opened the wrapper of the chocolate, it gave foul smell. He complained on toll free No.1800227080 but to no avail. He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking compensation of Rs.90,000/- besides Rs.9,000/- as litigation expenses and refund of Rs.150/- i.e. the price of the chocolate.

3.      Notice being issued, the opposite parties contested the complaint by filing reply denying the product to be sub-standard/defective. It was stated that the opposite parties manufacture quality products strictly under Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (for short FSSAI). It was stated that the sample of the same being sent to Food Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, it was found to be free from fungus but the wrapper was giving rancid odour. It was stated that the product had life of 12 months and in case the product had been exposed to high temperature or direct sun light, there were chances of wrapper producing foul smell. Denying the allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

4.      The sample of chocolate being sent to Food Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, the sample was found to be free from fungus but the wrapper was giving rancid odour. It has been explained by the opposite party No.1 that in case of product being exposed to direct sunlight or high temperature, the wrapper could produce foul smell.

5.      In view of the above, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.  The complainant has failed to establish by leading any cogent and convincing evidence that the chocolate supplied by the respondents-opposite parties to the complainant was of sub-standard quality/defective.

6.      Finding no merit, the appeal is dismissed. 

CL