Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

78/2008

K.Sugumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, M/S. Heniz India Pvt.Ltd &, others - Opp.Party(s)

M/S.Balasingh Ramanujam,M.Balaji

09 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  :08.01.2008

                                                                          Date of Order : 09.02.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

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

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

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

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

CC. NO.78 /2008

FRIDAY THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

                                              

Mr. K.Sukumar,

No.1, Chidambaram Nagar,

3^rd Street, C.B. Road,

Chennai 600 021.                                        .. Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

 

1.  The Managing Director,

M/s. Heniz India (P) Ltd.,

7^th Floor “D” Shivsagar,

Worli, Mumbai 400 018.

 

2. The Area Manager,

M/s. Heniz India (P) Ltd.,

Teynampet, Chennai -18.                          ..  Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for complainant        :  M/s. A.Balasingh Ramanujam & another    

Counsel for opposite parties  :  M/s. S.D.Ramalingam & other      

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- as compensation for loss of reputation and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as mental agony and Rs.50,000/- as cost of the complaint.  

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that he is doing Grocery Retail business  for the past 50 years.   He purchased the goods from the Whole sale dealer of the opposite parties namely M/s. Mahindra Enterprises.  On 21.9.2007 by way of bill No.4161,   the complainant purchased various goods including 500 gms of Complan Refill pack Chocholate flavor.    The complainant is a regular user of Complan took one pack for his personal use.   On 22.9.2007 in the morning the complainant consumed one glass of Complan as usual.   Within an hour the complainant felt uneasy with severe stomach pain and vomiting etc.   Immediately the complainant rushed to nearby Stanley Hospital.  After due diagnose it was found that there was a food poisoning to him.   The complainant also suffered severe diarrhea he was under the observation for two hours.  He disclosed to the doctor that he consumed one glass of Complan alone in the morning.  After due tests doctor prescribed tablet for 15 days.   The complainant is suspecting the pack and again opened it, to his shock and surprise there was a dead lizard found in that Complan pack in a decomposed manner.  Hence the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party on 3.10.2017 but there was no response.      As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complaint.   Hence this complaint is filed.   

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties is as follows:

The  opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite parties state that the complan is being manufactured having highly sophisticated manufacturing process and passing through fine mesh sieve immediately before filing and sealing of the pack.   The manufacturing process is entirely automated having closed loop environment with no manual handling and human interventions.  Hence the averment made by the complainant stating that the dead lizard found in complain pack is not possible and not probable as the complan is being powdered and there is no possibility of containing any dead lizard.  Heinz India i.e. 1^st opposite party has an ISO 9001 and HACCP certified manufacturing facilities which follow very high standards of  hygiene and regular pest control practices.  The opposite parties further state that  strict quality control measures are part of the system at each step of process, starting from the approval of incoming raw materials used as intermediates, monitoring of critical control points, final product analyze before packing, clearance of finished goods including stacking and loading in trucks there is a well developed pest control program for the entire factory.   In view of the above stringent quality control standards followed by the company negligence or deficiency in service shall not arise.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B8  marked on the side of the  opposite parties and also Ex.C1 marked.

4.      The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- towards compensation for loss of reputation as prayed ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- as mental agony with cost of Rs.50,000/- as prayed for?

5.   POINTS  1 & 2:

        Both parties filed their respective written arguments.   Perused the records viz. complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.    The complainant pleaded and contended that  he is doing Grocery Retail business  for the past 50 years.   He used to purchase the goods from the Whole sale dealer of the opposite parties namely M/s. Mahindra Enterprises.  On 21.9.2007 by way of bill NO.4161,   the complainant purchased various goods including 500 gms of Complan Refill pack Chocholate flavor as per  Ex.A1 the bill.  The complainant is a regular user of Complan took one pack for his personal use.   On 22.9.2007 in the morning the complainant consumed one glass of Complan as usual.   Within an hour the complainant felt uneasy with severe stomach pain and vomiting etc.   Immediately the complainant rushed to nearby Stanley Hospital.   Ex.A2 is the admission card.  After due diagnose it was found that there was a food poisoning to him.   The complainant also suffered severe diarrhea he was under the observation for two hours.  He disclosed to the doctor that he consumed one glass of Complan alone in the morning.  After due tests doctor prescribed tablets for 15 days; thereby the complainant sustained great mental agony.  The complainant filed this complaint and a petition CMP No.52/2008 for referring  the sample to the King Institute for Analytical report. On 25.4.2008 it was reported that

“ I am of the opinion that the sample is found to contain a dead and dried Lizard in full shape inside.  The presence of which renders the food not fit for human consumption.   Hence the sample is deemed to be adulterated as per Sec. 2(i) (a), (f) of PFA. Act 1954.   “

The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony including the cost of Complan Refill Pact Rs.293.63.  Further the complainant pleaded and contended that if the said Complan was sold to 3^rd party customer it would have given adverse effect to his business and the area people ransacked his business establishment.    The complainant was not able to do his retail business for 10 days.  On 3.10.2007 the complainant  issued legal notice vide Ex.A3.   Even after receipt of notice the opposite party has not sent any reply.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- towards compensation for such loss of reputation.   But the complainant has not produced any record to prove  his  reputation in such manner.  

6.   The contention of  the opposite parties is that admittedly the complainant is a business man doing retail business.   He purchased the impugned Complan Refill Pack for the purpose of sale.  Hence as per Consumer Protection Act 1986 this complaint is not maintainable.  But on a careful perusal of the complaint and other records it is seen that the complainant is a regular user of Complan and he has taken one Complan refill pack for his own use and consumed one glass of complan on the alleged date.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complan is being manufactured in the unit having highly sophisticated manufacturing process and passing through fine mesh sieve,immediately before filing and sealing of the pack.  The authority also issued ISO 9001 and HACCP certificate for such manufacturing facility as per Ex.B5.  Batch No.A03338 was packed on August 2007 report was also checked  and verified again and it was found satisfactory.  But the opposite party has not produced any record to prove such packing in the alleged Batch No.A03338 except ISO certificate and other certificate.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that all allegations mentioned in legal notice dated 3.10.2007 are inadvertent for the purpose of the case.  The complainant also has not produced suitable report to prove such infection caused the alleged  diarrhea and vomiting etc resulting treatment for 15 days.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.A2 it is apparently clear that the complainant availed treatment before Stanley Hospital for such vomiting etc.   Equally analysis report  ExC1 it is very clear that the impugned Complan pack is not good for consumption.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that claiming such huge amount towards mental agony and loss of reputation is exorbitant and imaginary.  The complainant  has not produced any evidence for such huge compensation.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.294/- towards cost of the Complan Refill Pack and shall pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-  towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  and the points are answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.294/- (Rupees Two hundred and ninety four only) towards cost of the Complan Refill Pack and shall pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.    

The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 9^th day of February 2018. 

MEMBER –I                            MEMBER-II                            PRESIDENT.

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1-  21.9.2007 - Copy of purchase bill.

Ex.A2- 22.9.2007  - Copy of Hospital admit card.

Ex.A3- 3.10.2007 - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A4- 11.10.2007 –Copy of Ack. By the 1^st opposite party.

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1 8.3.2013 -  Copy of board Resolution of the 1^st opp. party.

Ex.B2     Copy of Step-step demonstration of manufacturing

Ex.B3 28.8.2006Copy of quality manual of the 1^st opp. party.

Ex.B4 17.1.2008 - Copy of TUV SUD certificate of the 1^st opp. party.

Ex.B5 2.10.2014 Copy of ISO Certificate of the 1^st opp. party.

Ex.B6 Copy of Annual quality policy.

Ex.B7 Copy of Print out of Web page.

Ex.B8Copy of detailed process and sophisticated machinery

                            Used in the manufacture  of Complan.

 

Ex.C1 23.4.2008 - Copy of report by Food Analysis Laboratory,

                                King Institute , Guindy, Chennai.

 

 

 

MEMBER –I                            MEMBER-II                            PRESIDENT.