Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/681

Meenakshi Sarangal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Harpreet Singh Adv.

28 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 681 of 24.11.2015

Date of Decision            :   28.11.2016 

Meenakshi Sarangal wife of Sh.Harpreet Singh r/o H.No.245-BX, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Mondelez India Foods Pvt.Ltd., (Formerly Cadbury India Ltd.), Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20^th Floor, Tower-3, (Wing-C) Indiabulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai-400013, India.

2.M/s Pal Basant Ice Cream, Near R.S.Model School, Near Railway Crossing, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana, through Partner/Proprietor.

…Opposite parties

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

MRS.          VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Harpreet Singh, Advocate

For Op1                         :         Sh.Ritesh Mohindra, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Ex-parte

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant purchased a box of Cadbury Chocolates(Dairy Milk) containing 56 chocolates of 14 gm each from Op2 vide bill No.001943 dated 18.10.2015 for Rs.560/-. Those chocolates were manufactured by OP1 with date of manufacturing of 5/2015. That was to be used best before 12 months from the date of packaging. That box of chocolates was to be distributed by the complainant amongst the children. Complainant is a school teacher. Complainant after opening the box was surprised to see that out of 56 chocolates, two chocolates considerably were underweight. Complainant paid full price of Rs.560/-, but two chocolates were of less weight than that of endorsed weight of 14 gm on cover of the packets. In view of this unfair trade practice on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- including punitive damages and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2.                In written statement filed by Op1, it is pleaded that complaint is false, vexatious and frivolous because the complainant does not discloses the exact net weight of the product alleged to be underweight. Sole aim in filing of the complaint is to get undue gains by unwarranted litigation. Description of underweight two chocolates has not been given anywhere in the complaint. Rather, OP1 has always maintained highest standards of manufacturing practices, hygiene and exercises all the necessary care and caution during its manufacturing and distribution processes. Op1 maintains the very highest levels of quality, safety, accuracy and hygiene at all its plants and complies with all international standards prescribed for the food processing industry. The packaging machines used in the manufacturing unit are imported machines with inbuilt accurate weighing load cells. The accuracy of in-built weighing load cell is upto 0.5g with auto control on weighing process. All weighing machines are also regularly stamped by Weights and Measures Department for its accuracy. Besides, OP1 has strong on line quality control checks consisting of manual weight checks every half an hour for every machine. Electronic balances having readability 0.00g with accuracy level of 0.01g with auto-calibration facility are installed in the unit. In case, the impugned packet was found to be less weight, then complainant could have approached the retailer for exchange of the alleged packets and retailer would       easily have replaced the same. Complainant instead of exchanging the alleged impugned packet has unnecessarily indulged in litigation for unwarranted gains. On label of    the product, it is mentioned that consumers may register their complaint or feedback with regard to the quality of the product. Complainant has not produced the chocolates before OP1 for verification of the same regarding their weight and genuineness. Even if the samples are sent to the Central Forensic Lab, then copy of report has not been given to the OP1. Allegations regarding purchase of the chocolate box denied along with other allegations of the complaint.

3.                OP2 is ex-parte in this case.

4.                Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and thereafter, her counsel closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Mr.Amit Mathur, Manager Legal of OP1 and then closed the evidence.

6.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely.

7.                OP1 in the written statement denied about the purchase of chocolates by the complainant from OP2, but the complainant has produced on record copy of bill of purchase Ex.C1 and as such, claim of Op1 is false that the complainant has not purchased the box of chocolates from OP2. That box of 56 chocolates was purchased for Rs.560/- is a fact borne from the contents of Ex.C1.

8.                Two underweight chocolates wrapped in wrapper produced before       this Forum and those were sent to Regional Reference Standard Laboratory of Government of India for weighment. Report Ex.C3 was received to the effect that the weight of two chocolates packages was of 11.092 g and 4.413 g respectively. So, this report Ex.C3 of Government Laboratory itself proves that these two chocolate         Bits were having weight less than that of 14 gm. Net weight 14 gm is inscribed on the wrapper of each Bit of chocolate is the fact borne from the contents of photographs Ex.C2 of chocolate Bits itself. So, case of the complainant is fully believable that though each of 56 chocolate Bits were supposed to be of 14 gm each, but in fact      two out of these 56 chocolate Bits were having weight of 11.092 gm and 4.413         gm respectively. In view of underweight of these two chocolate Bits, certainly Ops carried on unfair trade practice of selling underweight chocolates.

9.                It is vehemently contended by counsel for OP1 that automatic weighing and packaging machines are installed in the factory unit and accuracy of those machines checked by Weights and Measures Department regularly and as such, question of chocolates being underweight does not arise. That submission of counsel for OP1 has no force because even if the automatic machines may have been installed in the plant/unit, but actually out of 56 chocolates Bits, two were found     underweight by the Government Laboratory itself. What precautions are taken in the manufacturing unit, qua that consumer concerned qua the hygiene conditions. If despite precautions of due weighment of chocolates Bits, two were found  underweight in a container of 56 chocolates, then certainly consumer is the looser in getting underweight chocolates pieces, despite payment of full price.

10.              It is also contended by counsel for the OP1 that the complainant has not given exact weight of 56 chocolates and if such weight would have been               given, then container of 56 chocolates would have been having the prescribed weight. Total weight of the 56 chocolates is immaterial because on each and every chocolate packet wrapper mention is made as if net weight of each is 14 gm. So, in view of this endorsement of net weight of 14 gm on each and every wrapper of the chocolate, the consumer is to find as to whether actually each and every chocolate packet, duly wrapped in a sealed wrapper, has the weight actually endorsed on the wrapper or not? That weight of 14 gm endorsed on duly sealed wrapper on two chocolate packets, was not there and as such, certainly unfair trade practice adopted by OP1 in selling underweight chocolate packets through dealer OP2. So, liability of OP1 and OP2 will be joint and several for the mental harassment caused to the complainant.

11.              Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on ratio of case titled as Reckitt Benckiser (India)Ltd., vs. Manish Kumar-2011(2)CPJ-391(Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) for arguing that in case of underweight item/product heavy costs of Rs.10,000/- should be awarded with interest. However, that submission of counsel for the complainant has no force because facts of each and every case differs. In the reported case, 6 packets of Robin Powder of 400 gm each were purchased and those were found underweight, but in the case before us, out of 56 chocolates Bits, two alone were underweight. So, in view of these circumstances     and in view of the fact that the complainant cannot be allowed to get undue benefit for unjust enrichment, ends of justice warrants that Ops should be saddled with costs      of Rs.1000/- and also to compensation for mental harassment of Rs.2000/-.

12.              As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed against Ops in terms that they will pay Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation for mental harassment, but Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Liability of both Ops will be joint and several. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

13.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                                (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:28.11.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.