Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/338/2017

Deepak Nagar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Bhardwaj

21 Dec 2018

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/338/2017
Date  of  Institution	:	20/04/2017
Date   of   Decision	:	21/12/2018

 

 

 

 

 

Deepak Nagar son of Sh. Mahipal Singh Nagar, Resident of Village Sarangpur, U.T. Chandigarh.

 

……… Complainant

 

Versus

 

PEPSICO India Holdings Pvt. Limited, Frito-Lay Division, 3B, DLF, Corporate Park, S-Block, Qutab Enclave, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India, through its Manager/Authorized Representative.

 

……. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:   SH. RATTAN SINGH THAKUR      PRESIDENT

SMT.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For Opposite Party	:	Sh. R.K. Rathore, Vice Counsel for Sh. Manvender Rathi, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

          Sh. Deepak Nagar – Complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Limited (hereinafter called the Opposite Party), alleging that on 23.03.2017, he along with family approached his aunt house at Manimajra, where his minor son, along with other children went to one Shop and bought some eatable, which also include three packets of Kurkure also. The son of the Complainant brought one packet of Kurkure to the Complainant for opening the same, upon which the Complainant got suspicion as not only the weight of the packet was less, but the sound the snack inside the packet was not coming. The rest three packets were okay. The Complainant on verifying found that there was no snack inside the packet. The Complainant pointed out the same to the Shopkeeper and the Shopkeeper informed that he used to sale the packet in the same condition as it was obtained by him from the Manufacturer. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party contested the claim of the Complainant and filed its reply, inter alia, pleading that the packet of Kurkure in question do not belong to it and had not been manufactured by it. It has been asserted that the answering Opposite Party maintains the very highest levels of quality, safety and hygiene at all its Plants and complies with all international standards prescribed for the Food Processing Industry. Thus, denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

5.      Along with the Consumer Complaint, an application, for sending the packet of Kurkure to the Laboratory in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was filed by the Complainant, which was opposed by the Opposite Party. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, that application was allowed, vide our order dated 13.11.2017, and the subject Packet was ordered to be sent to the Food Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, for analysis and report.

 

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

 

“The analysis report in respect of a sample of Packet of Kurkure sent by your goodself in this Laboratory for its analysis is as given below:-

 

Sample Marked here as: P-45 – Jan 18

Sample Marked by you: Packet of Kurkure

Sample received on: 23-01-18

 

Description:-    A sealed, packet printed as Kurkure Masala Munch etc. was received in the Laboratory on 23.01.2018.

 

Label: - The label is printed as Kurkure Masala Munch, B.No. N1301216, MFD-30 Dec.16, Mfdd by:- Pepsico Holdings India Pvt. Ltd., Village Channo, Patiala, Distt. Sangrur, Punjab, Best Before – 4 months from manufacture etc.

 

Physical Appearance:- On opening, the packet was found to be empty (not containing any food article).

 

Analytical data: Analysis couldn’t be done as the packet didn’t contain any food article.

 

Opinion:- From examination of the sample herein referred to and the result obtained by analysis, I am of the opinion that the sample marked here as P-45 Jan 18 didn’t contain any article of food.

 

The seals(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.      Opposite Party submitted its objections against the report alleging that the report is not maintainable, as the report nowhere mentioned that the packet was manufactured by the Opposite Party and the Complainant did not earlier file application for sending the packet for its test. Further, the product is perishable in nature and has its shell life which was expired. It has also been stated that the packet was procured from the open grey market to file the present Complaint. 

 

8.      In reply to the objections, the Complainant has contended that there is no shortcoming in the report and the report from the Laboratory has been obtained as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has been stated that the objections raised by Opposite Party do not contain any value.

 

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

 

10.      The Opposite Party has contended that the packet of Kurkure in question do not belong to it and had not been manufactured by it and was procured from the open grey market. However, we are not impressed with the same. We have perused the Retail Invoice (Annexure C-1) dated 23.03.2017 whereby the subject packet of Kurkure was purchased and have also perused the Photograph of the Packet (Annexure C-2), which shows that the product was marketed by the Opposite Party i.e. [PEPSICO India Holdings Pvt. Limited, Frito-Lay Division, 3B, DLF, Corporate Park, S-Block, Qutab Enclave, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India]. Further, in the report of the Food Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, it has been clearly mentioned that the packet of Kurkure Masala munch was manufactured by Pepsico Holdings India Pvt. Limited. Hence, the contention raised by the Opposite Party does not hold good and is rejected. Pertinently, the packet in question was sealed in the presence of Opposite Party 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. Hence, in these circumstances, refusal on the part of Opposite Party that the product in question does not belong to it is not substantiated. At any rate, the Food Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, in his report has categorically opined that the packet did not contain any article of food. The Food Analyst in analytical data has stated that analysis could not be done as the packet did not contain any food article. Thus, the objection taken by the Opposite Party that product was perishable in nature and has its own shell life does not hold any water and is rejected. Therefore, in all probabilities, it was Opposite Party who manufactured and marketed the product in question, who was sold to the Complainant vide Annexure C-1. In other words, there is concrete evidence to link Opposite Party with the packet in question.

 

11.      At any rate, the act of the Opposite Party by selling an eatable article is not only deceptive to the consumer but also proves that the Opposite Party is not attentive towards the quality measure of the product which are meant to be eating mainly by the children. It is thus, legitimately proved that the Opposite Party did not pay any heed towards verifying the product before bringing the same to the open market for sale to the consumers. 

 

12.      The sequence of the events of the present case, clearly establishes the highhandedness of the Opposite Party 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 Party 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 Party is 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 Party, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Party is directed:-

(i)  To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony.

(ii) To pay Rs.5,000/- 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 Party within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it 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

21^st Dec., 2018                                                     Sd/-             

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

       MEMBER

 

 “Dutt”