State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Swapan Dhar vs Kelloggs India Pvt. Ltd. on 31 October, 2019
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Complaint Case No. CC/97/2017 ( Date of Filing : 14 Feb 2017 ) 1. Swapan Dhar S/o Lt. Adhir Dhar, Flat no.5D, BL-1, Prasad Exotica, 71/3, Canal Circular Road, P.S.- Phool Bagan, Kolkata -700 053. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Kelloggs India Pvt. Ltd. Plot no. L2 & L3, Taloja MIDC, Dist.- Raigarh, Navi Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin-410 208. 2. Rajshree Stores Prasad Exotica, 71/3, Canal Circular Road, Kolkata- 700 054. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Complainant: Mr. Barun Prasad, Mr. Subrata Mondal, Mr. Sovanlal Bera, Advocate For the Opp. Party: Mr. Suman Paul Chaudhury, Advocate Dated : 31 Oct 2019 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
In a nutshell, case of the Complainant that, he purchased one 550 g. sealed packet of 'Kellogg's Muesli Crunchy Fruit and Nut' from the retail shop of OP No. 2 vide Bill dated 28-06-2014. After opening the packet on 29-06-2014, to his utter surprise, the Complainant found worms hazardous and dangerous to health inside the packet. He immediately informed the matter to the OP No. 2, but to no avail. Then he lodged FIR with Phoolbagan Police Station, who started due proceedings in accordance with law. The concerned Police Station referred the seized packet to Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare at Central Food Laboratory and the said Government authority vide its report dated 16-07-2014 opined that the same did not conform to standard laid down under Regulation No. 2.12 and other food safety parameters of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products and Food Additive) Regulation 2011 as it showed significant infestation of worms and presence of living and dead insects in it. It also showed fungal growth (visible) on several of the ingredients and also presence of foreign matter (sands) in it. It also revealed high total plate count. Hence, the same was declared sub-standard and unsafe as per Sec. 3(1)(zx) and 3(1)(zz)(iii)(v)(ix)(x)(xi), respectively, of the FSS Act, 2006. It is further submitted that, after institution of the police complaint, the Complainant was under the impression that the concerned Police Station would take the matter to its logical end. However, as he did not witness any development for months together, he filed an RTI application to elicit information in the matter. Subsequently, he came to know that the OP No. 1 preferred Criminal Revision before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta being CRR No. 823/2015 and the Hon'ble Court was pleased to stay further proceedings of GR Case No. 2274/2014. Afterwards, this complaint is filed by him.
Notice was duly served upon both the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared through their respective Ld. Advocates. However, as the Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 1, despite undertaking to file vakalatnama, did not file it ultimately, the case was heard ex parte against it.
OP No. 2, in its defence, submitted that it is merely a local grocery shop and not the dealer of the OP No. 1. This OP further submitted that it purchased the disputed packet from 'Bengal Trading' and it had no knowledge about the content of the sealed packet and sold the same to the Complainant in good faith. As such, it denied any negligence, as alleged.
The Complainant filed evidence in support of his contention and also replied to the questionnaire being put forth on behalf of the OP No. 2. No such evidence is, however, filed on behalf of the OP No. 2.
Be that as it may, having heard both sides and on perusal of the material on record, we find that there is no dispute as to the fact that the disputed packet, manufactured by the OP No. 1, was purchased from the shop of the OP No. 2 by the Complainant on payment of due cost of the same.
It is evident from the report of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India that the product was an unsafe product, not suitable for human consumption; rather, hazardous and dangerous to public safety. Selling such unsafe product in the market is a clear act of unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No. 1 and being the seller, the OP No. 2 cannot evade its liability feigning ignorance about the content of sealed packet.
It is the sacrosanct responsibility of the manufacturer of a food product to put in place stringent quality control mechanism so as to ensure that only quality/safe products make their way to the market. As products infested with insects, worm, fungal growth is perilous to public safety and may even prove fatal, it becomes all the more necessary for such producers to remain wide awake 24 x 7.
Fact of the matter remains that, the OP No. 1 miserably failed to adhere to statutory safety norms for which it cannot evade due liability in the matter and being the seller, the OP No. 2 also cannot escape its shared responsibility for selling such sub-standard dangerous product to the Complainant. However, we did not find any justification for claiming such huge compensation.
Accordingly, the case is allowed in part against the OPs. The OP No. 1 shall pay Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant and deposit another sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with the Consumer Welfare Fund of this Commission. OP No. 2 shall pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant. OP No. 1 is also held liable to pay litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant. In case of non-compliance of this order in toto within 40 days hence, the defaulter OP(s) shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the respective decretal amount mentioned hereinabove for the entire period of default. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER