Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/215/2015

M/s.Akila N.Subramaniam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Britannia Industries Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

J.Saravana Vel

10 May 2016

ORDER

                                                                            Date of Complaint  : 21.04.2015

                                                                 Date of Order         : 09.05.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT :    THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L.,                  :  PRESIDENT                     

                     TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                :  MEMBER – I

                     DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

                                                     

C.C.No.215 / 2015

THIS MONDAY  9^th   DAY OF MAY 2016

 

Akila N.Subramaniam,

W/o. Subramaniam,

No.6/19-A, 2^nd Street,

Raghava Reddy Colony,

Ashok Nagar,

Chennai 600 083.                                                   .. Complainant.

                                                         - Vs-

Britannia Industries Limited, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, India Land Tech Park, Tower B, 5th Floor, Plot No.14, III Main Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai 600 058.                                                     .. Opposite party.		.. Opposite party.

 

For the complainant             :    M/s. J. Saravana Vel & another          

For the opposite party          :   Exparte 

 

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

 

1.     Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the manufacture and supply of sub-standard product causing mental agony and also to direct the opposite party not to offer hazardous goods for sale and withdraw the hazardous goods from being offered for sale and to pay cost of the complaint.

2.     Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version.  Hence the opposite party was set exparte on  28.10.2015. 

3.     Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4  filed by the complainant  and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant’s counsel.  

4.       The complainant contended that  she purchased two numbers of Milk Bikis Biscuits on 29.12.2014 from the retailer called Grace Super Market at Ashok Nagar, Chennai.  When she opened one of the Biscuit pocket on 8.1.2015 she found more than  2 c.m. length thin metallic wire in one of the biscuit pocket and decided not to consume any more of the product and kept in safe custody.   The said biscuit has been in the market for a long time and is consumed by thousands of people  varying ages throughout India and complainant is also one such person.   The complainant was shocked to find such a sub-standard quality in the  opposite party product.   The production marketing and sale of biscuit is governed by Food safety and standards act 2006.   She purchased the said food product in order to meet her personal needs.   In terms of Sec.20 of the Act no article of food shall contain any contaminant etc. and Sec.54 prescribes penality for such food.    Hence she issued legal notice to the opposite party on 13.10.2015 seeking apology and compensation but the opposite party replied claiming that the product has to be examined in opposite party lab and refused to pay any compensation.    The opposite party manufactured and supplied sub-standard product which is hazard to life.   Hence the complainant filed the above complaint seeking direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the manufacture and supply of sub-standard product causing mental agony and also to direct the opposite party not to offer hazardous goods for sale and withdraw the hazardous goods from being offered for sale and to pay cost of the complaint.

5.     The allegations attributed against the opposite party is that when the complainant purchased two Milk Bikis biscuit pocket from a retailer  she found more than 2 c.m. length of thin metallic wire in one of the biscuit pocket.    The purchase of biscuit pocket is evidenced through the purchase bill i.e. Ex.A2 and also through the M.O-1 which is the remaining biscuits in the pocket.    The presence of metallic wire is also  evidenced through the production of M.O.-2 in which the said metallic wire nearly 2 inches in size is visible through naked eye.    

6.     Biscuits are consumed by children as well as adults but generally it is consumed by children in larger extent.   In such circumstances the contention of the complainant that an extraneous material i.e. within metallic wire found in the biscuit pocket manufactured by the opposite party would have caused health hazards to the health of the consumer if consumed is acceptable.  The presence of the said extraneous material i.e. M.O.2 proves the negligence of the opposite party since they are the manufacturer of the said product.    The opposite parties stated in their reply legal notice that the product has to be examined in lay testing of the sample of the goods in question is not required to be done in each and every case and its requires to be done only in the cases where the defects in the goods cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods.  But in the present case the presence of the  extraneous material  is very well seen in naked eye from the perusal of the M.O.2.   As such lab report is not required.   Hence the opposite party is liable for the negligence.    

7.     The product being the biscuit and mostly consumed by children the opposite party being the manufacturer and also a reputed company would have taken utmost care in manufacturing / packing as well as distributing for sale whereas he had failed to do so to that extent the opposite party is liable for compensation.   

8.     The metallic wire is mixed with the product is admissible through M.O-2 whereas the complainant admitted that she had not consumed the said biscuit.    As discussed above since we feel that the above act of opposite party is only due to their negligence, the relief of the complainant praying direction against the opposite party not to offer hazardous goods for sale and to withdraw the hazardous goods from being offered for sale is not sustainable.   Moreover the complainant had not produced the batch number of the compliant mentioned biscuit to claim the above relief. 

9.     The counsel for the complainant’s submission that normally the said products can be sold in retail dealers as well as in petty shops, so the non-impleading of dealer from whom the complainant purchased the product   will not consider to be fatal is acceptable.

10.    Moreover the opposite party has also failed to appear before this forum in order to defend their case even after receipt of notice and they remained exparte.  

11.    Therefore as discussed above we come to the conclusion that the complainant had proved the negligence of the opposite party through sufficient documents.  Hence we are of the considered view that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant as such he is liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for their negligence and also a sum of Rs.2,500/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  Whereas the compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant and he is entitled for just and reasonable compensation.

 

        In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above compensation amount of (Rs.10,000/-) shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment.   

                Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 9^th  day of  May   2016.

 

 

MEMBER-I                                        MEMBER-II                                           PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1-                              - Copy of Photos.

Ex.A2- 20.12.2014     - Copy of purchase bill.

Ex.A3- 30.1.2015      - Copy of Legal notice to opposite party.

Ex.A4- 8.2.2015        - Copy of opposite party reply to complainant.

 

Opposite party’s side documents: -  

 

 .. Nil ..          (exparte)

 

 

Material Object: -

 

M.O.I -   Remaining biscuits in the pocket.   

M.O.II- metallic wire nearly 2 inches in size is visible with biscuit.

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                                         MEMBER-II                                          PRESIDENT.