State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd. vs Manjit Kumar Dhamija on 3 February, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2013
Date of Institution: 28.03.2013
Date of Decision: 03.02.2014
Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.L2 and L3 Taloja Midc, Distt.
Raigad, Maharashtra - through its Managing Director/General
Manager.
...Appellant/Opposite party No.1
Versus
1. Manjit Kumar Dhamija, Advocate, Chamber No.223,
District Courts, Bathinda.
......Respondent/Complainant
2. Billu Variety Store through its Prop. Billu Ram son of
Satpal, Main Chowk, Paras Nagar, Bhathinda.
.....Respondent/opposite party No.2
First Appeal against the order
dated 10.01.2013 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:
For the appellant : Sh. Sameer Rathaur, Advocate For the respondents: Ex-parte SMT. SURINDER PAL KAUR, MEMBER This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 10.1.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short "District Forum"), allowing consumer complaint No.536 of 2012 and directing opposite party No.1(appellant before us) to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/-, including the cost of 10 packets of First Appeal No. 353 of 2013 2 the Kellogg's Honey Loops, as compensation on account of harassment suffered by the complainant and opposite party No.2 was further directed to pay Rs.500/- as the cost for non-issuance of the bill.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that opposite party No.1/appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of Kellogg Honey Loops all over India. In the month of September, 2012 the complainant purchased 10 packets of 30 gms Honey Loops, manufactured in February/12 by opposite party No.1 from the shop of opposite party No.2. When he was mixing said Honey Loops in the milk as instructed by opposite party No.1, he found some insecticides in the said Honey Loops. When he opened the second packet, the result was the same. Remaining sealed packets were not used by him and the same remained with him. According to the complainant it was a clear case of recklessness and negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Since the Honey Loop packets were found to be adulterated and were not fit for human consumption, he filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay him Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and financial loss, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/- were also demanded.
3. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 failed to appear before the District Forum on the date of hearing. Therefore, it was proceeded against Ex-parte.
First Appeal No. 353 of 2013 3
4. Opposite party No.2 filed written reply before the District Forum wherein he admitted that 10 packets of 30 gms Honey Loops were purchased from him by the complainant and that no bill was issued for the same. It was pleaded that he was only a retail seller and not an authorized stockist of opposite party No.1. He sold the above said packets to the complainant in sealed condition. It was also admitted that the complainant came to his shop and informed that he found insecticides in two packets. Since all the packets were sold by him in sealed packets, therefore, there was no negligence or deficiency in service on his part. In case there was any negligence or deficiency in service, the same was on the part of opposite party No.1, who is the manufacturer. He sold the above said sealed packets as received from the dealer of opposite party No.1. Accordingly dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
5. The District Forum, on appreciation of the evidence on record, allowed the complaint, vide order dated 10.1.2013 in the aforesaid terms.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party No.1 has filed this appeal. Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that no insecticide was found in the product. According to him, complainant specifically mentioned that he found some insecticides in the packets. It was impossible to find out if there were insecticides inside a sealed packet, merely by inspecting the same with naked eyes. It was further submitted that the products are duly tested during and after the manufacture for its compliance with quality standards. All products sold in the market are of high quality and there is absolutely no First Appeal No. 353 of 2013 4 possibility of the product being contaminated or infected with an external agent. The product is exposed to extremely high pressure and temperature of around 1500C in the extrusion process, after which these are toasted in an Oven. The entire product is then packed by the automatic packing line in airtight materialized liner contained within cartoons. The product did not suffer from the defect as alleged in the complaint. The District Forum could have granted the relief to the complainant only if the product suffered from the defect alleged in the complaint. There was no evidence or expert report on the basis of which the District Forum could have come to the conclusion that there were insecticides inside the sealed packets of the product. The complaint was an abuse of process of law and to malafidely extort money from them.
7. We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on record.
8. The case of the complainant is that he purchased 10 packets of 30 gms Kellogg Honey Loops from Billu Variety Store in the month of September, 2012 which were shown to have been manufactured in February, 2012. It was printed on the packets itself that these were best before 9 months from the date of manufacture i.e. upto November, 2012 whereas the same were purchased by the complainant in the month of September i.e. almost 2 months before the date of expiry. The complainant produced these packets of Honey Loops before the District Forum for physical inspection and the said products were kept in safe custody after its inspection in the Open Court. It was found by the District Forum that sample contained First Appeal No. 353 of 2013 5 plenty of worms which could be seen with the naked eyes and, as such, it was not necessary to send the same for any further inspection to the laboratory.
9. The sealed packets were called from the District Forum by this Commission and these were inspected by us on 23.10.2013. One packet was in open condition and remaining seven packets were duly sealed. We opened one of the air tight sealed packet, which had no hole, and its contents were dissolved in a glass of water. We also observed with naked eyes that black coloured dead insects were found floating in the water. The same were further verified with the help of a magnifying glass. The presence of insects in the sealed packet clearly establishes that the product was adulterated one and not fit for human consumption. Opposite party No.1 was certainly found negligent while manufacturing the Honey Loops. In the averments made in complaint, the complainant has referred to presence of some "insecticides" in the product. But we are of the considered opinion that he meat "the insects" for which, he inadvertently used word 'insecticides'. The contention of opposite party No.1 that the product has to pass through extrusion process at 1500 C before packing in sealed packet is not convincing because dead insects were found in sealed packet. Apparently the ingredients, used for the product, attracted these insects which died during the process. When the foreign agents in the form of dead insects were visible with naked eyes, there was no need to send the product for examination in any laboratory.
First Appeal No. 353 of 2013 6
10. In view of the above, the appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. The appellant/opposite party No.1 had deposited Rs.7,500/- with the Commission at the time of filing of appeal. This amount of Rs.7,500/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the Registry to the complainant by way of Cross Cheque/Demand Draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
12. Remaining amount, as per the order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent/complainant after 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order.
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 31.1.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER February 03,2014 SONIA