State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
J.P.Kasturi Bai vs Hershey India Private Limited on 6 May, 2024
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.241 OF 2022
AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.SR.No.3278/2021
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
J.P.Kasturi Bai,
H.No.12-7-111/4, Opposite R.R.B. 2nd gate,
Keshavnagar Colony, New Mettuguda,
Secunderabad, Telangana, Pincode : 500 017.
.......Appellant/Complainant
And:
1.Hershey India Private Limited, Chemtex House, Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai, Pincode : 400 076, Phone : 02225727800
2. Dabur India Limited, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, Pincode : 201010, Uttar Pradesh.
3. Cavinkare Private Limited, 12, Poonthamallee Road, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai-600 032.
4. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 3B, DLF Corporate Park, S-Blk, Qutab Enclave, Phase III, Gurgoan, Haryana 122002..
5. Britannia Industries Limited, 5/1A Hungerford Street, Kolkata-700 017, West Bengal.
6. Cipla Ltd., Cipla House, Peninsula, Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013.
7. Johnson & Johnson Private Limited, 501, Arena Space, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Off Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400 060.
8. Apex Coco and Solar Energy Limited, No.70-1, Devanallur, Chellampalayam Post, Dharapuram Tk, Tiruppur District 638672.
9. Parle Agro Pvt., Ltd., Off Western Express Highway, Sahar-Chakala Road, Parsiwada, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400 099.
210. Nestle India Ltd., Nestle House, Jacaranda Marg, M Block, DLF City Phase II, National Highway 8, Gurgoan 122 002.
11. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd., Enkay Towers, Phase 5, Udyog Vihar, Gurgoan-122 106.
........Respondents No.1 to 11/Opposite Parties No.1 to 11 For the Appellant/Complainant : Party-in-Person Counsel for the Respondent No.1 /Opposite Party No.1 :
M/s. Roshan Aloor Counsel for the Respondents No.2 & 8 /Opposite Parties No.2 & 8 :
Sri M. Pratap Singh & Kalpana Counsel for the Respondent No.3 /Opposite Party No.3 :
Sri S. Leo Raj & Sri G.V.S. Ganesh Counsel for the Respondents No.4, 6 & 7 /Opposite Parties No.4, 6 &7: Sri T.G. Rajesh Kumar For the Respondent No.5/Opposite Party No.5 : Called absent Counsel for the Respondent No.9 /Opposite Party No.9 :
Sri M. Abhinay Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.10 /Opposite Party No.10 :
Sri S. Leo Raj Counsel for the Respondent No.11 /Opposite Party No.11 :
Sri N.B. Sudarshan QUORUM :
HON'BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT & HON'BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER - (JUDICIAL) MONDAY, THE 06th DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR ********** 3 Order : (PER HON'BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER - JUDICIAL)
1. The appeal is filed under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant in person, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission-I, Hyderabad, dated 12.01.2022 in CC SR No.3278/2021 by rejecting the complaint.
2. The brief averments of the complaint in CC SR 3278/2021 are that the opposite parties are multinational Companies dealing in products for human consumption; that the complainant purchased those products and consumed them several times in the last 2-3 decades; that the opposite parties are selling the drinks in a tetra pack with a straw hole, seal exposed and by piercing the tetra pack one has to consume the drink and as the straw is exposed to the climatic conditions, it contaminates the drink which leads to several health issues to the consumers;
that the products of the opposite parties are available everywhere and most of the occasions no bills are issued, whenever the products were purchased; that the due to the actions of opposite parties the public health is being exposed adverse to their interest; hence, the complaint seeking direction for the withdrawal of all their products in the market; to seize manufacture of the products; to direct not to sell the products until they are properly packed; for interim direction restrain to introduce similar products in the market until the present complaint is disposed; to impose punitive damages of one crore rupees.
3. The office took objection on 04.01.2022 that the bills filed by the complainant are not reflecting her name and the reliefs as prayed for are in the nature of public interest litigation and there is no power to grant such reliefs to the Commission. On 05.01.2022 the objections were resubmitted by stating that the matter may be posted before the Bench for hearing. The complainant was heard on 12.01.2022 and on the same day the complaint was rejected by holding objections as proper.
44. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by stating that the objections are invalid and vexatious, because they are not supported by the Act and Rules and regulations governing the functioning of the Commission and the order was made erroneously.
5. Now the point for determination is whether the rejection of the complaint at the admission stage by the Commission below is sustainable?
6. Nobody is examined and no document is marked on either side. The appellant/complainant failed to appear before this Commission in most of the times except on few adjournments numbering to three, during the period from 12.04.2022 to 30.04.2024, as such the arguments of the complainant are treated as heard, whereas, the arguments of respondents are heard.
7. Point: For the sake of convenience the parties will be addressed as they arrayed in the complaint. It is important to note that a close look at the complaint would reveal that it was filed on behalf of public at large without complying with the provisions of Order 1 Rule VIII of CPC. No permission from the Commission below was obtained to file such complaint. The complainant alleged that due to the acts of the opposite parties in packing their human consumable products, they are exposed to the elements of nature which will lead to damage to the health condition of the public; as such those products shall be banned until in a proper way the products are packed. As rightly observed by the Commission below no document whatsoever is filed by the complainant to show that he purchased any of the products of the opposite parties under a bill issued in her name. To attract the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, a consumer shall be a person who purchased the products by himself by paying the amount or by way of deferred payment or obtained services for consideration or for deferred consideration. It means unless there is a consideration, no cause of action will arise for a person to sue 5 the opposite parties. Added to the same, the complainant shall prove the loss or injury sustained by her due to the purchase of the products. No IOTA of documentary evidence is let in to show that by the usage of the products of the opposite parties, the complainant was subjected to ill-health or sustained any loss. In the absence of any injury or loss suffered by the complainant, there is no cause of action; as such the complaint is liable for rejection. The Commission below committed no error or any irregularity or any illegality while rejecting the complaint. We are also concurring with the order of the Commission below. In otherwords, the point is answered against the appellant. For filing this type of complaints and appeals, she is hereby seriously warned with a direction not to repeat filing vexatious complaints, should she do so, will be mulcted with heavy costs.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the rejection order of the complaint, made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad in CC SR No.3278/2021, dated 12.01.2022.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer on the System and corrected by me and pronounced by us in the Open Court on this the 06th day of May' 2024.
Sd/- Sd/-
I/c PRESIDENT MEMBER-JUDICIAL
Dated : 06.05.2024
*AD