Orissa

Rayagada

CC/37/2021

BISWAJIT DEB - Complainant(s)

Versus

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

17 Sep 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

C.C.CASE  NO.__37_______/2021                                     

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

 

 

Sri  Biaswajit  Deb,  Quarter  No. B-2B,  AT/Po: J.K.Pur ,    Dist: Rayagada, State:Odisha,     765 017            Cell No.9438576809.                                      …Complainant.

 

Versus.

 

1. The Manager, Mondelez  India  Foods  Private  Ltd., (Formerly Cadbury  India Ltd.), Mondelez  House,  Unit No. 2001, 20^th. Floor,  Tower-3, Wing-C, One International  Centre,  Parel, Mumbai- 400013, Maharashtra,
2. The Manager, Parveen Stores,  Retailer, AT/Po: J.K.Pur, Dist:Rayagada, mobile     No. 9777166123.                                                            … Opposite parties.

 

 

For the Complainant:- Self..

For the  O.P No.1:- Sri  Manoj  Kumar, Sri B.P.Panda  and associates

For the O.P. No.2:- Sri  Sunil  Kumar  Nayak, Advocate, Rayagada.

                                               

JUDGEMENT.

 

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non payment of  compensation  towards supply  of  live insects running  all over the  Cadbury Chocolates    for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.                                        

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps     put in their appearance and filed  written version through their learned counsels in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps    taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act,. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps.   Hence the O.Ps   prays the District Commision to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.Ps    and from the  complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This District Commission  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

         FINDINGS.

Undisputedly the complainant  had  purchased     four pieces of Cadbury Diary Milk Chocolate  Maha Pack  from  Praveen Stores, J.K.Pur, Dist:  Rayagada  i.e. O.P. No.2   on DT. 27^th. August, 2020 on payment  of consideration a sum of Rs.160/- (copies of the  purchased list  issued by the  O.P. No.2 is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).. There is no dispute out of above  four Chocolates, two  were consumed and while consuming balance two  the complainant noticed live  insects running all over  the chocolate(copies of the  photo is available  in the file which is marked as Annexure-2).  Undisputedly the date of packing  the chocolate was packed in  February,2020 and  the shelf-life of the product was 12 months from the  date of packing(copies of the packing  date is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-3).

It further appears that prior to filing   of complaint, the complainants had issued legal notice through its counsel on Dt. 21.10.2020 and it was duly served on the O.P.(Copies of the legal notice  is in the file which is marked as Annexure-4    but they failed to furnish reply to the said notice. Hence it appears that the O.Ps has been negligent and callous regarding the complaint of the complainant. So the complainant filed this C.C. case before the District  Commission

The  O.P. No.1 (Manufacturer) in their written version contended that  neither has the complainant furnished any proof of purchase   to establish the aforementioned claim, nor  has he shared the Batch code of the said products in order to allow the O.P. No.1 to verify the genuinity of the contents.  In support  the complainant has already  filed purchased  Cadbury  chocholate  box  copy  which is marked as Annexure-3.   The  complainant  has also filed  purchased  slip issued  by the  O.P. No.2 (Retailer)    on Dt. 27.8.2020 (In support  the complainant ha s already  filed  which is marked  as Annexure-I).

The  O.P. No.1 (Manufacturer) in their written version  relied  citation  in the case of Cadbury India Ltd.  Vrs.  Kanteppa & Ors. (R.P. No.1051 of 2010 decided on Dt. 3.12.2015 the Hon’ble  National Commission where in observed  “That a laboratory test  as sought for under section  13(1)© of the  C.P. Act,1986 (now  section  38(1)© of the Act,  2019 was mandatory in such circumstances, and  instead of  of the members of the District Consumer Commission themselves visually inspecting  the infected product should have sent  the product for lab analysis  as prescribed  Section 13(1)© of the C.P. Act, 1986.

To counter the above  decision  the complainant argued  that there is a catena of  judgments   of   Apex court  are there   that  in   every case  expert opinion is not mandatory.

When in  plain  eye   it is noticed that there was   formation of white colour moss and dusty particles all over the chocolates Photostat  copy of the  Chocolates and live insects  which is  available in the file marked as     Annexure-4  there is no necessity to sent the same  for any  laboratory  test.

In  written version  the  O.Ps     vehemently   argued   that the present complaint  case  as filed by the complainant is not maintainable.  We are of the opinion that the  case  is  relating  to defective goods which is  covered under  section 2 (i) (f)  of the   C.P. Act, 1986.  The C.P  Act provides that “Defective  means any fault, in imperfection or shortcoming  in the  quality, quantity,  potency, purity or   standard which  is required to be  maintained  by  or under  any   law for the time being  in force”. it  is made clear that the Users and includes the provisions of which means that when a person is using the product of the O.P.No.1 (Manufacturer) purchased from the  O.P.No.2(Retauker)  he is also coming within the definition of consumer and the service provided  or attached to the said  goods. Admittedly the O.P. No. 2(Retailer) is selling  the product manufactured by the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1  has clearly   admitted in their written version  that he is manufacturing and marketing the products through  O.P. No.2.   When the consumer is purchasing the consumer goods he is under the  bonafide believes that the said product  is  good for consuming.

In this  context we perused the  citation of Apex court  reported in  SCC 2004(5) page No. 65 where  in  the Hon’ble Supreme Court  observed   that the concept of compensation  referred by  the   C.P. Act, 1986 and for that purpose to protect the interest of consumer has been in case after case given   wide  connotation and encompasses in its   fold each and every element of suffering including  mental agony, harassment, physical  discomfort, emotional sufferings  or injury  suffered by the consumer.  The provisions  of the   C.P. Act enable  a  consumer  to claim and empower the  forum to redress any injustice done.   The Forum is entitled to award not only  value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him.

The  O.P. No.2(Retailer) in his written version contended that  he is  innocent  of the defects associated with the quality of the item supplied to him on payment by manufacturing  company which is the O.P. No.1(Manufacture)  and  relied  the citations  which are mentioned here under.

It is held and reported  in  CPJ 2005 (2) page No.781 the Hon’ble State  Commission, Chandigarh  where in  observed  “the dealer/retailer  are the person who in the market comes in direct contact with the consumer and he assures about the quality   of goods sold and in case  the consumer  had problem with the purchased goods, the dealer/retailer  was under an obligation to refer the matter  to the manufacturer for necessary  relief”.

In the instant case  the  O.P.No.2(Retailer) had  intimated the fact  to the manufacturer  after receipt of the complaint from the complainant.

The O.Ps are   taking one and another pleas in the written version and had mentioned  a lot of citations of the Apex  courts and   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act

In the  instant case the District Commission  relied citations which are mentioned  here under.

it is held and reported   in C.P.R-2014(4) page No. 33 where in the Hon’ble  State Commission  observed  “C.P.Act is beneficial legislature and  commissions are supposed not to be over technical in their  view.   It is to be reiteratd that under the Act  technicalities are not to be  encouraged because only the procedure which is  prescribed  under the Act,  is to follow  the principle of natural justice and to decide the matter after hearing  both the parties”.

Further  it is held  and reported  in  C.P.R-2013 (4) page No. 129  the Hon’ble National Commission where in observed  “C.P. Act is a benevolent legislation and its sole  aim is to secure  social  purpose”.

The  complainant  claimed  Rs.50,000.00 for payment  towards  compensation.

For awarding  compensation  to the complainant  this  District Commission relied citations  which are mentioned here under.

It is held and reported in CPR- 2010 (3)  page  No. 327  the Hon’ble  State commission,  New  Delhi  where in observed    “Compensation is not a matter of right.”

Further  it is  held and reported   in  Current consumer case  2005  page No. 110 (SS) where in the Hon’ble  State commission, H.P., Shimala    observed  “No man  can take advantage of his own wrong”. 

This  commission  for better appreciation  further  relied citations  which are putforth in the present   case  in hand.

Further it is held and reported in C.P.R.2015 (1) Page No. 658  the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi where in observed “ Award of compensation must be supported by  reason”.

Again it is held and reported in C.P.R. 2012(2) Page  No.  222  the Hon’ble State Commission, New Delhi where in observed  “There is no standard classified yardstick for award of compensation”.

Further it is hed and reported in CPR 2011 (2) page No. 282 the Hon’ble National Commision, New Delhi  where in observed  “Consumer forum can award compensation as deemed  proper, reasonable and not as per asking  of the complainant”.

Again it is held and reported in CPR 2011 (2) page  No. 268  the Hon’ble National  Commission, New Delhi  where  in observed “Amount of compensaion should be fair and respectable”.

 

In view of the fact that this  Commission under the Act can grant relief/compensation only in terms of the  provisions of Section 35(1)(d) of the Act in terms of the said  provision a consumer can be compensated  only for the  actual loss  sustained  by him on account of deficiency of service on the part of the  O.Ps.  The complainant has not substantiated his claim  for  compensation  with required   papers.

In terms of Section-35  of the C.P. Act, 2019 a consumer is entitled to an amount  as compensation for the loss or injury suffered  by him due  to  the  negligence on the part of the O.Ps.

 Further no evidence to show actual loss suffered by the complainant  could not establish his case  before the  Commission.

Further it is settled  position of law that  cost and compensation can not be claimed on presumptive grounds.

Ends of justice will be met if the  O.P. No.1(Manufacturer) be directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000.00 (Rupees ten thousand)only to the complainant  towards mental agony, litigation expenses.

 

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part and considering the facts of the case we hold that the complainant should not be deprived of the compensation amount due to mental agony.

Hence to the meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

                                               

ORDER.

In resultant the complaint stands allowed in part against  O.P No.1 (Manufacturer)  on contest  and  dismissed  against O.P. No.2 (Retailer) on contest.

The O.P  No.1 (Manufacturer) is   ordered to Pay  Rs.10,000/- (Rupees  Ten thousand)  only   to the  complainant   towards  mental agony, harassment, physical  discomfort, emotional sufferings  or injury  suffered by the consumer.

This  is to  be  complied   by the O.P No..1(Manufacturer)  within  45 (forty five) days  from the date of receipt of this order. 

Copies of the order be served  on the parties free of cost  as per rule.

Dictated  and corrected by me. 

Pronounced on  this         17^{th     September},  2021. 

 

                                    Member.                                                      President.