State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jahanvi Worah vs Parle Buscuits Pvt.Ltd on 14 May, 2010
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 14-05-2010 Case No. C-10/40 JAHANVI WORAH - COMPLAINANT Q-19B, Jungpura Extn., New Delhi - 110014 Versus PARLE BUSCUITS PVT.LTD - OPPOSITE PARTY North Level Crossing, Vile Parle East, Mumbai 400057 Maharashtra CORAM : SHRI M.L. SAHNI - Presiding Member MS SALMA NOOR - Member 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? SHRI M.L. SAHNI (ORAL) ORDER
1. The complainant is an advocate by profession.
She purchased a 30 gm packet of Parle Musst Stix for Rs. 5/- as per MRP printed on the wrapper containing inscription that contents were 50% extra believing the representation made by way of advertisements issued by the OP that the amount of money she was paying for the packet contained extra quantity of snacks more than what were being sold by the competitors of the OP.
However, the complainant soon realized that the product of the OP did not have 50% contents as compared to similar products of other manufacturers. According to the complainant, products of other manufacturers, like Kurkure, Masala Munch, Yellow Diamond and Haldiram, were available at Rs. 5/- having weight 22 gms, 30 gms, and 22gms respectively as against the product of the OP having contents only 30 gms despite their claim of 50% extra, which is misleading and false and hence OP are liable to be held guilty for Unfair Trade Practice as defined u/s 2 (1)(r)(1) (i), Section 2 (1)( r) (1) (ix) and Section 2 (1) ( r) (2) of the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, the complainant has prayed for the following directions to the OP u/s 14 of the Act:-
i) To cease and desist from publishing false and misleading advertisements in respect of its product, namely Parle Musst Stix as impugned in this complaint;
ii) To withdraw from the market all packets of its product, viz., Parle Musst Stix, which contain the statement 50% extra;
iii) To issue corrective advertisements in respect of its product, viz., Parle Musst Stix;
iv) To render its accounts before this Honble Commission and identify its advertising budget for the Financial Year 2008-09;
v) To pay a sum of Rs. 99,94,000/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Lacs Ninety Four Thousand only) pursuant to the provisions of section 14 (1)(hb) of the Act and be pleased to direct the same to be deposited to the credit of the Consumer Welfare Fund or such other fund or authority as may be directed by this Honble Commission;
vi) To pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation; and
vii) Pass ex-parte ad-interim orders pursuant to Section 13(3B) of the Act, in terms of prayers
(i) and (ii) above.
2. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant at the stage of admission.
3. In reply to the query regarding pecuniary jurisdiction, it was pointed out on behalf of the complainant that firstly she had filed her complaint on these facts before the National Commission bearing CC No. 175 of 2009 but later on withdrew it on 13-11-2009 with liberty to file a fresh complaint before the Appropriate Forum. However, considering that she would be able to justify her claim for Rs. One Crore, on the basis of additional material she again approached the National Commission with a fresh complaint on the same cause of action, but it was dismissed vide order dated 27-01-2010 with the observations:
Bare reading of this order would show that liberty was given to the complainant to file fresh complaints before the forum other the National Commission and no permission was granted to file additional material for filing fresh complaints as stated in para 20 (Complaint No. 17 of 2010) and para 21 (Complaint NO. 16 of 2010) of the complaint. Both the Complaints are, therefore, dismissed being not maintainable in this Commission. This order will not come in the way of complainant in filing complaints pursuant to the said order dated 13-11-09.
4. Pursuant to this order, now the complainant has come before this Commission by reducing her claim to less than Rs. One Crore, praying the reliefs as stated above.
5. It is submitted on behalf of complainant that by virtue of the fact that the OP have spent Rs. 9274.22 lakhs, on advertising for sales promotion during the year 2008-09, therefore, claim of damages is justified to bring the dispute raised by the complainant within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. We do not agree with this contention. Had this been the justified ground, then Honble National Commission would not have hesitated to entertain this complaint twice. Reference to Appropriate Forum for which liberty was sought and granted vide order dated 13-11-2009, to our mind did not mean Consumer Fora at all, because such complaints are entertainable by the Authorities constituted under the MRTP Act or by the Courts of Law.
6. The Competition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in a recent decision has held that incentive given by the Prafetti (I) Ltd., in the normal course of business is a normal trade practice which does not constitute unfair or restrictive Trade practices. (Reference is made to Director General (I & R) vs Prefetti (I) Ltd 20 to CTJ 63.
Present complaint is a case of giving incentive to the consumers to promote sale of the product and does not amount to making a false statement as alleged.
7. Now coming to the merits of the case, we find that the allegations made in the complaint, do not constitute a consumer complaint for the reasons stated hereunder.
8. There is nothing on record even to suggest that the OP have published any advertisement claiming that their product is the same as that of other manufacturers. Their Brand name of the product Parle Musst Stix by no means is comparable to Kurkure Masala Munch, Yellow Diamond: or Haldiram, therefore pricing their product at Rs. 5/- for contents of 30 gms as against 22 gms, 30 gms or 20 gms is illogical.
9. We find no material on record to satisfy ourselves that the claim of 50% extra made by OP printed on the packet is false or misleading. Net weight printed with MRP Rs. 5/- is not misleading by any stretch of reasoning especially when it is not even alleged that the same product being sold earlier under this Brand name by the OP was of the same weight or not less than 50% as claimed by the OP.
10. Admitting such complaints and issuing notices to the OPs as vehemently prayed by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant alone shall tantamount to abuse of the process of Law and rejecting it at the threshold will be nipping the evil in the bud. The judgment in case of Lakhanpol National Vs MRTP Commission dated May2, 1989 is of no relevance in the present case.
Rather allowing the appeal, it was held in that case that erroneous description of manufacturing company in the advertisement does not attract Section 36-A of the MRTP Act. Therefore, observations made therein as referred to by the Ld. Counsel for complainant render no help to her. There is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act para-materia to Section 36-A of the MRTP Act for conducting any enquiry as envisaged under that Act.
11. The complaint being frivolous and vexatious is, therefore dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, which shall be deposited with State Consumer Welfare Fund for recovery of which the Registrar of this Commission shall take necessary steps in accordance with the Section 25(3) and Section 27 of the CP Act.
12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
13. Announced on 14th May 2010.
(M.L. SAHNI) PRESIDING MEMBER (MS SALMA NOOR) MEMBER AV