Haryana

StateCommission

A/115/2023

MARICO LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHILPA SINGHAL AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

VIPUL JOSHI

09 Feb 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Instituion:06.02.2023

                Date of final hearing:09.02.2023

                                                Date of pronouncement: 09.02.2023

 

First Appeal No.115 of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Marico Limited through authorized representative, 7^th Floor, Grande Palladium, 175, CST Road, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Mumbai City-400098.

.….Appellant.

Through counsel Shri Gaurav Chopra, Advocate

Versus

 

1.    Ms. Shilpa Singhal, Flat No.702, Twoer 2-A, Suncity Parikrama, Sector-20, Panchkula, Haryana-134116.

2.    Allied Natural Product, Killa No.26/24/2 & 25/1, Village Liwaspur Indl. Area, Rathdana Road, Bahalgarh, Sonepat, Haryana-131021.

….Respondents.

Through counsel Shri Prateek Singhal, Advocate

 

 

CORAM:   S.P.Sood, Judicial Member.

                    S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Sr. Counsel alongwith Mr. Vipul Joshi, Advocate, Mr. Prashant Kumar Kapila, Advocate, Mr. Yugam Taneja, Advocate & Ms. Meghna Garg, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr. Prateek Singhal, counsel for respondents.

 

O R D E R

S. P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          As is evident from the head note of this petition, registry people did have some objections against the maintainability thereof, but after the author of the same assured them that he will satisfy the Bench regarding its maintainability so the same was permitted. However, as the respondent had already put in her appearance through her counsel Shri Prateek Singhal, Advocate who categorically stated at bar that he has no objection so far as maintainability of this appeal is concerned, therefore, this Bench went ahead and accepted the arguments raised by both the parties on merits including this aspect as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Section 47 (1) (2) thereof observing that since vide the impugned order an application has been disposed off finally put forth by complainant seeking analysis of contents of both of the bottles of Safola honey alleged to have been purchased by her so as to ascertain whether the contents of the same conform to the ingredients mentioned on these bottles of honey or not, therefore this appeal is maintainable.

2.                Going into the background as to what compelled present respondent to file the complaint, facts mentioned in the body of complaint goes like that she purchased a bottle of honey on 17.05.2022 vide an invoice from OP No.1 manufactured under the brand name of ‘Safola’ following which the same was consumed by her mother-in-law on the following day. However, thereafter, all the family members of the complainant including her mother-in-law left for Rajasthan as they were supposed to attend some marriage function over there. However, towards the evening of 18.05.2022 itself her mother-in-law felt suffocation and hereafter she experienced puckish feeling and ultimately vomited. Alongwith this, she also experienced loose motion, following which she was taken to some medical officer, who of course  advised her some medication. Further, as per the complaint, when complainant tried to use this honey, she noticed some foreign substances in the contents of this bottle, following which apprehending the contents thereof to be spurious or sub-standard, she approached the learned District Commission seeking compensation. Of course, these facts were emphatically denied by the Ops and requested for dismissal of the same. During pendency of this complaint, complainant moved this application seeking to get the contents of these bottles of honey to be chemical analyzed, which of course was also opposed tooth and nail by the Ops, but ultimately the same was allowed vide impugned order by learned District Commission on 13.01.2023.

3.                Aggrieved by the said order, appellants have come up with the present petition.

4.                Before adverting upon to discuss this petition on merits, first of all, we have sincere doubts regarding maintainability of this petition with its present heading because as per Sections 47 (1) (a) (iii), this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain appeal against the orders of any District Commission within the State of Haryana. Taking a pause over here, if we refer to Section 47 (1) (b) of this Act the same provides that the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer disputes which is pending or has been decided by any District Commission within the State, where whether it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction which was not vested in it bylaw or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction or has acted in exercise in its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  Now as per the submissions put across by learned counsel for the petitioner, since the application so put forth by the complainant has been decided finally by the learned District Commission vide the impugned order, therefore his appeal is maintainable, whereas as per our opinion, instead of filing present appeal he should have approached the State Commission under Section 47 (1) (b) but not with this appeal under Section 47 (1) (a) (iii) read with Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. However, without getting into any such technicalities even we are inclined to take as this petition  especially when respondent has not assailed its maintainability and treat this appeal as a revision for all intents and purposes, keeping in view the nature of relief sought thereby.

5.                If, we look into the record of this revision petition, we found that main grouse being manufacturer put forth by the revisionist is against the analysis to be carried out by the concerned laboratory while following the directions issued by learned District Commission with the apprehension that even if one bottle of honey purchased on 17.05.2022, there was no whisper of the same complainant having purchased another bottle, what to talk of disclosing the date of manufacturing, batch number or expiry in her complaint. It is quite surprising that all those details having not been disclosed, how come, learned District Commission could send two bottles instead of one purchased by the complainant on 17.05.2022 , putting it differently as to how second bottle came into picture, which was also ordered to be sent for analysis by learned District Commission. Added thereto, learned counsel for the revisionist has also expressed his strong reservations that nothing has been disclosed by the complainant as to how and in what manner the second bottle, which was also alleged to have been purchased, was stored before the same was being produced before learned District Commission for its transmission to the laboratory for its analysis, but as is evident, learned counsel representing the respondent disclosed before this Commission that the second bottle of Safola honey was purchased by the complainant on 30.06.2022 vide a separate invoice of the even date, which was also presented in sealed condition before the learned District Commission so as to rule out the apprehension of complainant having added some foreign material thereto deliberately to the contents of previous bottle to get a favourable report after necessary analysis.

6.                We have heard both the learned counsels at length twice, firstly on 07.02.2023 and thereafter today i.e. on 09.02.2023 as learned counsel for respondent has also caused his appearance on 07.02.2023 itself and has intended to submit written reply to the revision as well as other applications. Since, as per the mandate and intentions put forth in the scheme of things, the Legislature in its own wisdom has provided under Section 38 of this Act, that in a situation whether a consumer having bought any particular product has alleged some defect therein, then of course, a procedure has been put in place in the Act itself for getting the product analyzed, from the appropriate laboratory so, as to confirm the alleged defect in the same. This is what precisely has been resorted to by the learned District Commission because there has been a dispute regarding the quality and purity of the contents of honey purchased by the complainant. This order of getting the contents of both these bottles analyzed is what precisely has been objected to vehemently by the revisionist. However, in the same Section 38 itself it has also been provided that if any party disputes the result of any such analysis or has any reservation then such party is well within its right to raise objections against the said report of analysis which has to be disposed off by the learned District Commission in accordance with Section 38(2) f & (2). Therefore, in the fitness of things where learned District Commission is found to have exercised its jurisdiction perfectly as per law while sending both the bottles for honey chemicals analysis thereof to appropriate laboratory seeking its report regarding the purity or quality of the contents of the same  does not call for any such interference by way of  revision. However, in order to satisfy the apprehension nourished by the revisionist which of course is more or less ill founded that can certainly be taken care of while directing, learned District Commission, Panchkula to procure a sealed new bottle of Safola brand honey by the same manufacturer/company pertaining to the same batch number, same expiry date & same manufacturing date by appointing some Local Commissioner and send the same for analysis of its contents to the same laboratory immediately as the same will address the concerns put across by the counsel for the revisionist that the bottles sent by the Commission earlier so presented to it by the complainant might not have been stored as per the directions printed thereon or tempered with, at the cost of appellant. The appeal stands disposed of in terms as stated above.

8.                  A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. Let a copy of this order be sent to learned District Commission for prompt compliance.

9.                  Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

10.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

Pronounced on 09^th February, 2023                                           S.P.Sood

                                                                                                            Judicial Member                                                                                                                   Addl. Bench  

 

 

           

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik

                                                                                                            Member                                                                                                                                  Addl. Bench  

 

R.K