Haryana

Karnal

CC/27/2016

Sidharth Parkash S/o Dharam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Surya Food And Agro Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S.C. Dhunayar

04 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL. 

                                                     Complaint No. 27 of 2016

                                                    Date of instt.21.01.2016

                                                     Date of decision 4.10.2017

 

Sidharth Parkash aged about 30 years son of Shri Dharam Singh resident of House no.60, sector-14, Urban Estate, Karnal (Haryana)

                                                                                 ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus.

1. Surya Food and Agro Ltd. (Unit-II) (Manufacturer) plot no.A-1, Udhyog Vihar, Greater Noida (UP) through its Managing Director.

2. Surya Food and Agro Ltd. (Brand Owner) D-1, Sector-2, Noida-201301 (UP) through its Managing Director.

                                                                 ..…Opposite Parties.

 

 Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

Before     Sh. Jagmal Singh……….President.

                Ms. Veena Rani………Member

                Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:   Sh. S.C.Dumyan Advocate for the complainant.

                 Sh. Deepak Sardana  Adv. for opposite parties.

       

                (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

 ORDER:

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that Opposite party no.1 was the manufacturer of the biscuits with the name of ‘Priyagold’ and opposite party no.2 was the owner of the said ‘Priyagold’. Opposite parties have earned very good name and fame in India by providing good quality of biscuits. Complainant being impressed by the quality of the biscuits made by the opposite parties, used to consume the biscuits. On 12.10.2015 he purchased a packed of Priyagold (Marie lite) biscuits from the Retail dealer of the opposite parties i.e. Vishal Mega Mart, Avtar Colony, Karnal. The code is depicted on said packet is 8-901652140590 and the code of the bill is 000000001310003054/biscuits. Bill number is 281/9050000013913. He is having a daughter of age of about 1½ years and when she opened the said packet of biscuits and put one biscuit into her mouth to bite then suddenly he saw that there was a “iron wire” in the biscuit and then he snatched the biscuit from her hand. He was very shocked to see that opposite parties having very good reputation in India has not been caring about the products and played with the health of the people. It is alleged that aggrieved with the negligence and carelessness on the part of the opposite parties, he wrote a letter to the District Health Officer, Karnal on 14.10.2015 and requested for making an enquiry into the matter, accordingly the said packet was sent to the Food Safety Officer. On 26.10.2015 the FSO took the sample of biscuit for its testing and examination. On 4.11.2015 he got a report from FSO in which it was clearly mentioned that there was a metal wire in the Marie Lite biscuit vide his report bearing no.422. After that the FSO sent the sample of biscuit to Government Laboratory (Food Analyst) Haryana Chandigarh for analysis, who submitted his report dated 26.11.2015. It is further alleged that if his daughter would had consumed the said biscuit then it was very harmful for her health. Due to this act and conduct of the opposite parties complainant suffered mental pain, agony and harassment hence he is entitled for compensation of Rs.10 lacs.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding complainant is an abuse of process of law; locus standi and cause of action; estopped by this own act and conduct from filing the complaint; complaint is false and frivolous and concealments of true facts and complainant has not made the compliance of under section 13(1)© of the Consumer Protection Act, which was mandatory. On merits, it has been submitted that the Priyagold Brand name is reputed all over the world. It is also reputed for its quality. It has been denied that it is not possible for a minor girl aged about ½ years takes biscuits and she has opened the biscuits packet to eat the same but no physical harm is seen or no medical report submitted. It has further been submitted that it was not possible that any iron wire was embedded in the said biscuits as the Altra Modern Machine always check and catches Iron part automatically. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and close his evidence 3.8.2016.

4.             On the other hand, opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sudhir Kakkar Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R2 to R4 and closed his evidence on 4.1.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that on 12.10.2015 complainant purchased a packed of ‘Priyagold (Marie lite) biscuits from the retail dealer of the opposite parties i.e. Vishal Mega Mart, Avtar Colony, Karnal vide bill no. 281/9050000013913. The code depicted on the packet is 8-901652140590 and the code of the bill is 000000001310003054.He further argued that the complainant is having a daughter aged about 1½ years and when the packet of the biscuits was opened and she put one biscuit in her mouth, the complainant suddenly saw that there was an Iron Wire in the biscuit. The complainant snatched the biscuit from her hand. He further argued that the complainant was shocked to see that the company was having very good reputation in India, has not been caring about the quality of the product and playing with the health of the people. He further argued that the complainant wrote a letter to the District Health Officer Karnal on 14.10.2015 and requested for making an enquiry into the matter. He further argued that on 26.10.2015 the Food Safety Officer took the sample of the biscuit and got the sample tested from Food Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh. He further argued that the Food Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh gave its report with the following opinion:-

“The sample is contaminated with a metallic wire as foreign matter measuring length 2.5 cm approximately where as it should be free from the same.” Hence the same is of unsafe food.”

 

He further argued that if the daughter of the complainant would have consumed the said biscuit then it might have been harmful to her health.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that compliance of Section 13(1)© of the Consumer Protection Act has not been made which was mandatory. He further argued that ‘Priyagold’ brand name is reputed all over the world for its quality and no compromise with the quality is made by the opposite parties. He further argued that it is not possible that a minor girl about 1½ years age has opened the packet of the biscuit and can take biscuit. He further argued that it is not possible that an Iron Wire was embedded in the said biscuit as the Altra Modern Machine always check and catches Iron part automatically.

8.             From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear  that the complainant has purchased a packet of Priyagold (Marie lite) biscuit, vide bill Ex.C1. It is alleged by the complainant that an Iron Wire was found in the biscuit as is clear from the photograph Ex.C2. The complainant has written an application to the District Health Officer and the copy of the same is Ex.C6. The Food Safety Officer conducted an enquiry into the matter, took the sample and sent the same to the Food Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, who gave report Ex.C8, vide which it is found that the sample is contaminated with a metallic wire as foreign matter measuring length 2.5 cm approximately whereas it should be free from the same. Hence the sample is of unsafe food. The opposite parties besides affidavit produced on the file, the photocopy of the client list, letter for Metal detection System for various products and the brochure of the Technofour Electronics Pvt.Ltd. The opposite parties have not denied that the packet of the biscuits in question is not their product. As already stated above, the complainant made complaint  about the same and the Food Safety Officer had taken the sample of the packet in question and got it analyst from Food Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh where the same was found unsafe food. The version of the complainant is supported by the documentary evidence besides his affidavit. The opposite parties have not produced any such evidence that the product in question was neither manufactured by them nor the same is their product. In the above circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has succeeded in proving that an Iron Wire measuring 2.5 c.m. in length was found  in the product in question manufactured by the opposite parties which was an unsafe food. Hence the opposite parties have committed an act of unfair trade practice and are deficient in providing services to the complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are further of the considered view that in the interest of justice will be met if the complainant is allowed compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.

9.                     As a sequel to the abvoesaid discussions, we allow the complaint partly and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2200/- to the complainant on account of litigation expenses. Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 4.10.2017

                                                               

                                                                 President,

                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Veena Rani)                     (Anil Sharma)

                          Member                              Member