BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C.No. 164/2007 Filed on 29/06/2007

Dated : 31..08..2011

Complainant:

V.K. Devarajan, President, Holy Buddha Cultural Center and Director, Assirvad Janaseva Ashraamam, T.C.1/1430, Kumarapuram, Medical College – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. Cherunniyoor P. Sasidharan Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s. Britania Industries Ltd., 5/IA., Hungerford Street, Kolkata – 700 017.

   (By Adv. M.R. Anandakuttan)

    

2. Margin Free Market, Kumarapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. M. Ananthapadmanabhan)

This O.P having been heard on 15..07..2011, the Forum on 31..08..2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is the President of Holy Budha Cultural Centre and Director of Asirvad Janaseva Ashramam, Kumarapuram, Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. The said Ashramam is run as a charitable institution for the poor, the abandoned and the helpless people. The complainant purchased a Britania Tiger Biscuit on 29/01/2007 from the 2^nd opposite party Margin Free Market at Kumarapuram, Thiruvananthapuram by paying Rs. 22/-. The said Biscuit of 500 gms. was packed on 30/12/2006 having batch No. MFC. The complainant having faith in 1^st opposite party due to luring advertisements and other sales promotional activities purchased the product. But when the complainant opened the biscuit packet and served the biscuits along with the bed tea to the inmates, he was stunned to see a piece of hair hanging from one of the biscuits. At once he stopped serving of the biscuits to the inmates. The complainant was mentally shocked when he noticed the biscuit with hair. The careless acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant sent an advocate notice through his lawyer dated 01/03/2007 seeking a sum of Rs.50,000/- compensation for mental agony and stress suffered by the complainant. But no reply notice was given by the 1^st opposite party. Later a reminder notice was sent by the complainant on 3/5/2007. The above low quality of food item sold to the complainant amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and stress sustained to the complainant.

2. The 2^nd opposite party has been set ex-parte on 31/10/2008. 1^st opposite party was set ex-parte on 27/5/2008. But, on 30/12/2008, the 1^st opposite party had filed an IA No.35/2009 along with their version, to set aside the ex-parte order passed against them. Neither the complainant nor the 1^st opposite party has brought the same to the notice of the Forum. Even after the acceptance of the same on 30/12/2008 itself the complainant has not filed any objection to the said IA. In the meantime, the 1^st opposite party had filed a petition to cross examine the complainant, for which though the complainant had filed objection there is no whisper that the opposite parties remain ex-parte. The complainant has not raised any objection on the ground that 1^st opposite party is ex-parte. The 1^st opposite party in their version contends as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or under facts. Hence it is to be dismissed in limine. The 1^st opposite party did not sell any of its products through the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant. The Company Britannia Industries Limited is a popular and successful Company because of its compliance with all statutory provisions. The Company is a world renowned manufacturer of biscuits and other bakery products. Such being the fact Britannia Industries Ltd. has been blessed with huge popularity across the country and overseas. The popularity and corporate success is only due to a fair trade practice and adherence to the rule of law. The Company takes all possible precautions, which can be humanly perceived, and the specialists with huge experience are engaged in the job of quality assurance and maintenance of sound health standards. The 1^st opposite party for the purposes of manufacture of bakery products procures best quality raw material from vendors along with Certificate of Analysis, at every stage of production with each and every consignments. Resultantly, it implies that the 1^st oppostie party and its contract packers, procures only such raw material from Vendors which are certified for being pretested and certify that the raw material supplied to the 1^st oppostie party are free from any contaminant / metal traces / other material which may interfere with the purity of the bakery product sought to be manufactured by the 1^st opposite pary, prescribed in terms of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA) or other applicable legislations. The opposite party implements strict quality control measures for sorting / processing the raw material before the final bakery product is packed and sent for sale. That the entire process as set out above for the purposes of detecting any foreign body including metallic bodies are done in the presence of trained shift supervisors who control the entire process. In fact even the process of the cutting / slicing the dough to give the specific shape of the bakery product is done mechanically; therefore there is no possibility of even a small piece of foreign body to fall into the food product. Hence there is no chance of any type of adulteration or contamination of the product. So the averment regarding hair hanging from one of the biscuits' is an utter false and fabricated thing invented with ulterior intention to harass the opposite party and to achieve illegal monitory gains. The opposite party never played any unfair trade practice or committed any deficiency in service. The complainant is not entitled for any reliefs as sought in the complaint.

3. Complainant has filed affidavit and has been examined as PW1, Exts P1 to P4 were marked on his side. PW1 was cross examined by 1^st opposite party only. Opposite parties had no evidence.

4. The issues for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant has been sold low quality food item as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

5. Points (i) to (iii): The case of the complainant is that, he had purchased the Britania Tiger Biscuit in dispute on 29/1/2007 from the 2^nd opposite party by paying Rs. 22/- and that the biscuit was of batch No. MFC packed on 30/12/2006. The 1^st opposite party in their version has totally denied the said pleading of the complaint and has contended that the 1^st opposite party did not sell any of its product through the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant. We have gone through the records furnished by the complainant. There is no document produced by the complainant to prove the said purchase as pleaded in the complaint. Complainant has not produced the bill of purchase. In the absence of bill, which is the basic document of the transaction, the said contention of the 1^st opposite party stands established beyond doubt.

6. The complainant has produced the alleged biscuit and the same was sent to the Office of the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram on 22/7/2009. Their report has been marked as Ext. X1. As per X1 it has been reported that "A small quantity of brown coloured substance kept in a sealed unlabelled glass bottle. A dark brown coloured hair like strand was found trapped in the brown coloured substance. The hair like strand found trapped into the brown substance in the bottle was taken out, cleaned in soap solution followed by ether-alcohol solution and subjected to detailed microscopic examination. On examination, it was found that the material was a broken piece of hair of length 6.0 cms having straight nature and coarse texture. The hair had diameter of 154 microns. The microscopic characteristics showed that the hair was animal in origin. The piece of hair was then compared with the standard samples of various animals and found to be a broken fragment of tail hairs of cattle. Results of Examination: The sample provided contains a broken fragment of tail hair of cattle". But the important aspect for consideration in this report is that, nowhere it has been stated that the brown coloured substance is biscuit. Further, in the forwarding note, in the requirements at the Forensic Laboratory, it has been mentioned that "In the packing of material for expert examination, it is important that the specimen samples should be well protected against contamination from outside sources. The specimen when received at the Laboratory must be a true unadulterated sample of the material found at the scene of crime.......". In this case the alleged cause of action had accrued, as per the complaint, on 29/1/2007 and the specimen brought by the complainant has been sent to Lab after about two and a half years.

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that, the complainant has failed to establish his complaint and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31^st day of August, 2011.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI.A, ad. MEMBER.

C.C.No: 164/2007

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Devarajan

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of advocate notice dated 01/03/2007

P2 : " the letter dated 3/5/2007 issued by the complainant.

P3 : Acknowledgement card

P4 : Postal receipt dated 1/3/2007

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

PRESIDENT.