Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/742/2014

M.S. Nagi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Dabur India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

R.M. Dutta

04 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/742/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	12/11/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	04/04/2016

 

 

 

 

 

M.S. Nagi son of Late Sh.B.S.Nagi, resident of SCO No.59, Sector 30, Chandigarh.

 …………… Complainant.

Vs

 

[1]  M/s Dabur India Limited (Regd. Office & Customer Cell), 8/3, Asif Ali Road, New Delhi – 110002, through its Managing Director/CMD.

 

[2]  Managing Director/CMD, Dabur India Limited, (Regd. Office & Customer Cell), 8/3, Asif Ali Road, New Delhi – 110002.

 

[3]  General Manager, Dabur India Limited, Village Manakpur, Tehsil Baddi, Distt. Solan, H.P.

 

[4]  M/s C.L. Traders, SCO 142, 1^st Floor, Sector 24-D, Chandigarh, Distributor, Dabur India Limited, through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Authorized Signatory.

 

[5]  M/s Gosai Medicos, Booth No.23-24, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor/Partner.

 

……………  Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SMT.SURJEET KAUR                PRESIDING MEMBER

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA         MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. R.M. Dutta, Advocate.
For OP Nos.1 to 4	:	Sh. G.D. Goyal, Advocate.
For OP No.5	:	Sh. Shashank Sharma, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          The facts germane to this Consumer Complaint are these. The Complainant purchased one bottle of Dabur Honey 50 Gms (Batch No.BM00712 dated 04/2014) from Opposite Party No.5 vide bill dated 22.8.2014 for Rs.30/-. Later, he found the same to be insect (ant) infested and approached the Opposite Party No.5 to do the needful, but it refused to take back the same and rather instructed the Complainant to approach the Manufacturing Company for redressal of his grievance. Eventually, the Complainant served a legal notice dated 22.9.2014 upon the Opposite Parties, but the same failed to fructify. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant was thus constrained to file the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 in their joint reply have pleaded that the bottle purchased by the Complainant was not manufactured by them and the bill produced by the Complainant was not a genuine one. It has been denied that the bottle of honey contained insects (ant) as the product manufactured and marketed by the answering Opposite Parties goes through stringent quality control and conforms to all the prescribed standards of manufacturing and packaging. There is thus no possibility of the product containing any insect (ant) as alleged by the Complainant. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.5 in its reply has pleaded that it is merely a retailer and upon order got the Honey in question from the Opposite Party No.4, which was manufactured by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3. The honey was sold to the Complainant in a sealed condition. There is manufacturing defect, for which the answering Opposite Party cannot be held responsible. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.5 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      During the pendency of the Complaint, an application, for sending the sealed bottle of honey in question to the Government Food Analysis Lab, for examining the same and for submitting the report, was filed by the Complainant, which was not opposed by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 5. Accordingly, that application was allowed, vide our order dated 26.03.2015, and the bottle was ordered to be sent to the Public Analyst, Government Laboratory, Sector 11, Chandigarh, for submitting a report with regard to proper seal of bottle and adulteration and insect infestation of contents of bottle.

 

6.      The Food Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, submitted his opinion as under: -

 

“From examination of the sample herein referred to and the result obtained by analysis, I am of the opinion that the contents of the sample contain abundance of dead insects (ants). Hence unsafe for human consumption.

 

The seal(s) affixed on the container of the sample was/were found intact on arrival and tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by you.”

 

 

7.      No objection by Opposite Party No.5 to the report of the Food Lab was filed on 18.05.2015; whereas, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 submitted their objections against the report alleging that the report is vague and not admissible in evidence, as no test has been conducted by the Food Analyst to detect the alleged insects.

 

8.      In reply to the objections, the Complainant has contended that the sample was sent to the Food Analyst in sealed condition and correct report has been sent by him. There was adulteration and insects in the sample which was unfit for human consumption. The report given by the Food Analyst is per-se admissible under law. 

 

9.      We have appraised the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by the parties and oral arguments in the main Complaint, as well as the objections against the report of the Food Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh.

 

10.      The Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 have contended that the Batch No. mentioned in the Complaint and the Batch No. mentioned in the report of the Food Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, are different. We have perused the Batch No. as mentioned in the retail invoice No.20362 dated 22.8.2014 issued by the Opposite Party No.5 placed on record by the Complainant as Annexure C-1 at Pg. No. 9 of the paper book, which is shown as BH0071. We have also perused the Batch No. mentioned in the report dated 17.04.2015 of the Food Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, which is also mentioned as BH0071. Hence, the contention raised by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 does not hold good and is rejected. Pertinently, the bottle in question was sealed in the presence of Opposite Parties and sent to the Laboratory for which now the report of the Food Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, has been received, relevant extract of which has already been reproduced in the Para No.6 hereinabove. 

 

11.      On perusal of invoice (Annexure R/5/1) produced on record by the Opposite Party No.5, we find that the Batch No. of the products is not found mentioned in many bills, which have been issued by the Opposite Party No.4 to Opposite Party No.5. Hence, in these circumstances, refusal on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 that the product in question does not belong to them as sold by Opposite Party No.5 to the Complainant is not substantiated. At any rate, the Food Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, in his report has categorically opined that the contents of the sample contain abundance of dead insects (ants), hence unsafe for human consumption. Therefore, in all probabilities, it was Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 who supplied adulterated, insect infested and worm prone honey to Opposite Party No.5, who further sold it to the Complainant vide Annexure C-1. In other words, there is concrete evidence to link Opposite Parties with the bottle in question.

 

12.      The sequence of the events of the present case, clearly establishes the highhandedness of the Opposite Parties of which the complainant became the victim and felt the burnt, as a result the complainant has been left with no alternative, except to knock the doors of this Forum, which further aggravated his pain & harassment. Thus, on this account, we deem it proper to penalize the Opposite Parties No.1 to 5 for indulging in such activity, thereby causing not only loss, mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant, but also giving rise to undesirable litigation and thereby wasting the precious time of this Forum. Therefore, the Opposite Parties are penalized with cost of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account” No.32892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon’ble State Commission UT Chandigarh.

 

13.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 to 5, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly & severally, directed:-

 

(i)  To pay Rs.35,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony.

(ii) To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.      

(iii)  To deposit Rs.50,000/- in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account” No.32892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon’ble State Commission UT Chandigarh.

This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 5 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the amount at Sr.No. (i) to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till its realization, besides payment of litigation costs. The amount mentioned at Sr.No.(iii) be deposited in the account aforesaid within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the same will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till its deposit.

 

14.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

04^th April, 2016                                        

 Sd/- 

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER