State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Britannia Industries Ltd., vs Smt.P.Sandya on 25 February, 2026
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA.No.564 OF 2022
AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.No.105 OF 2019
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-III, HYDERABAD
Between:
1.Britannia Industries Ltd., 5/1A, Hungerford Street, Kolkata - 700017, West Bengal, Rep. by its Manager-Legal.
2. Britannia Industries Ltd., Authorized Person Prestige Shantiniketan, Tower-C, Whitefield, Bengaluru - 560048, Karnataka Rep. by its Manager-Legal.
........Appellant/Opp.Parties No.1 & 2 And:
1. Smt.P.Sandya, W/o.Y.Madhu, Aged 33 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.H.No.8-3-502/6, Sanjaygandhi Nagar, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad - 500073, Telangana.
.........Respondent/Complainant
2. D-Mart, Sanathnagar Road, Manager, 277, Sanathnagar IE, Hyderabad - 500018, Telangana.
.........Respondent/Opp.Party No.3 Counsel for the Appellants/Opp.Parties : M/s.Ramu & Associates Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Party-in-Person Counsel for the Respondent/Opp.Party No.3: M/s. E.Sudhanshu QUORAM:
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI ......PRESIDENT & HON'BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN ......MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX ********** Order : (Per Hon'ble Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Member Non-Judicial)
1. This appeal is filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 U/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, R/w Section-41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, praying this Commission to set 2 aside the orders passed in CC.No.105 of 2019, dated 20.05.2022 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, at Hyderabad by allowing the above appeal and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellants No.1 & 2 are the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, Respondent No.1 is the Complainant and Respondent No.2 is the Opposite Party No.3 in CC.No.105/2019.
3. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The Complainant purchased Britannia Hi-Fibre Biscuit packets (2 packets) from D-Mart. She claims that she regularly buys the biscuits as it is relatively good for health and she has two young children who consume the biscuits. The Britannia Hi-Fibre advertises the biscuits as high fibre and healthy for the heart. The biscuits were purchased by her on 05.02.2019 and when her daughter was eating the biscuit, she found a small piece of plastic. She immediately called Customer Care and she was given a complaint number and told that she would be connected and someone would collect the foreign particle found in the biscuit. She got a call from one Mr.Suresh, who said that he would come and collect the "foreign particle." He came only on 5th March, 2019 and she did not handover the sample. She filled in the feedback form and he took the form and picture of the biscuits. The Complainant informed Mr.Suresh that she would file a complaint on them as it is very dangerous to consume the biscuits containing the "foreign particle." She strongly condemns the experience and has filed the present complaint as a preventive measure and seek a compensation so that the company understands their responsibility.
4. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed their written version as follows:
The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are BIL, a Company incorporated and registered under the provisions of Companies 3 Act, 1956 and is engaged in manufacture and sale of biscuits, breads, cakes etc. Except for making allegations about foreign particle in the biscuit, the Complainant failed to place any material evidence in support of her allegations and the complaint cannot be considered.
5. The Complainant brought two Britannia Hi-Fibre Digestive Biscuit Packets (1 Kg Pack) from D-Mart Sanathnagar at a discounted price of Rs.124/- each. She called the Customer Care Cell number which was displayed on the biscuit packet and they told her that their point of contact would come and collect the "foreign particle", which was found in the biscuit. Mr.Suresh, their representative/contact visited the Complainant and as a goodwill gesture, he handed over sample biscuit packs which she accepted but she did not handover the "product" for verification and threatened to file a case on them as the foreign particle (polythene cover) is very dangerous when consumed.
6. The Complainant did not produce the copy of the bill issued from D-Mart and only received a whatsapp bill from the Manager at D-Mart. They deny that the Complainant suffered the agony and pain as pleaded and does not deserve the compensation as prayed for. In the view of the above submissions, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 denied the allegations made in the complaint and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7. The Opposite Party No.3 filed their counter stating that the Complainant had failed to produce a tax invoice as defined under Section-31 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and that there is no sale of goods by this Opposite Party No.3 to the Complainant as defined under Section-4 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. They further submitted that in the absence of tax invoice, there is no proof of sale of product, as such the Complainant cannot be defined as a customer under Section-2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further submitted that admittedly the product defects cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of goods as per Section 13(1)(c) and in the 4 absence of any analyzed report or test, complaint is not maintainable under law.
8. It is further submitted that the product in question is a food product as defined under Section-3(i) of the FSSA 2006. The Opposite Party No.3 had purchased the product from the manufacturers who gave the attached invoice for sale of the product to Opposite Party No.3. As per Section-26 (4) of the FSSA 2006, "No food business operator shall sell or offer for sale any article of food to any vendor unless he also gives a guarantee in writing in the form specified by regulations about the nature and quality of such article to the vendor: Provided that a bill, cash memo, or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a food business operator to the vendor shall be deemed to be a guarantee under this Section, even if a guarantee in the specified form is not included in the bill, cash memo or invoice."
9. The Opposite Party No.3 further stated that it is not a legal entity and cannot be sued as it is only a trade name of super market run by Avenue Super Market Ltd., who had not been made a party in the proceedings. This Opposite Party No.3 had taken abundant precaution by taking a copy of the lab report from Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 which certifies that the product of the same batch number confirms to the permissible standards and do not have any quality related defects as alleged by the Complainant.
Therefore, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice exhibited by this Opposite Party No.3 and prayed to dismiss the complaint against them.
10. Before the Commission below, the complainant filed evidence affidavit as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. Sri Mohd. Mohsin Beg, Manager Legal of the Opposite Party No.1 filed evidence affidavit on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and no documents are marked on their behalf. Opposite Party No.3 filed their evidence affidavit. Ex.B1 & B2 are marked on behalf of them.
511. The District Commission, after hearing and considering the material on record, allowed the complaint in part directing the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and trauma. Time for compliance was 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.
12. Aggrieved by the above orders, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 preferred this appeal contending that the Commission below failed to consider the following grounds:
The District Commission failed to consider that the biscuits were purchased on 05.02.2019 and the complaint was filed on 13.03.2019 and the biscuits were analyzed by the Food Analyst from 18.06.2020 to 20.06.2020 and the standard procedure prescribed under FSSA is not followed and hence, the Analyst report can neither be considered nor relied upon. As such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The District Commission failed to appreciate that the biscuits were opened and left open for long time, thereby exposed to varied weather condition, contamination, infests etc., before send the same to Food Analyst for analysis is futile exercise and therefore, the Commission below ought not to have relied Food Analyst Report.
The District Commission failed to appreciate that except sole allegation of complaint, there is no material or evidence on record to prove the allegation that there was plastic particle in the biscuit packet.
The District Commission failed to take into consideration Ex.B2-lab report of biscuits of the same batch obtained by the Respondent No.2 as per which the biscuits confirm to the standard and safe for human consumption.
13. We have heard the arguments of Respondent No.1/Complainant, party-in-person. There is no representation for Appellant and Respondent No.2. Their written arguments are on record and we have perused the same.
614. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Commission suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?
15. Point :-
The Complainant claims that she regularly purchases Britannia Hi-Fibre digestive biscuits and her two young children are fed the same. The Company advertises that these biscuits are high fibre, part of a balanced diet and reduces the risk of heart disease. On 05.02.2019, she purchased 1 Kg pack of Britannia Hi- Fibre digestive biscuits from D-Mart, Sanathnagar branch and while feeding the biscuits to her daughter on 23.02.2019, she found a piece of plastic in the biscuit. She contacted the toll free number and registered her complaint.
16. The Opposite Parties admit that the Complainant raised a complaint and their point of contact was directed to reach out and collect the "product" for verification but the Complainant refused to hand over the "product" to Mr.Suresh-their contact person.
17. A perusal of the documentary evidence placed before us reveals that the Complainant purchased Super Saver Pack of Britannia Nutri Choice on 05.02.2019 as evidenced vide Ex.A4. The Complainant has provided a photograph of the defective biscuit broken in two, showing a piece of plastic stuck to the biscuit. Her main grievance is that while feeding her daughter, she found the bit of plastic embedded in the middle of the biscuit and had her daughter consumed, she would have suffered greatly.
18. The Opposite Parties have filed Ex.B2 stating that the Nutri Choice Digestive Batch No.B12189A was analyzed and found to have complied with the Company's specifications. The Opposite Parties have not filed the affidavit or report submitted by their contact person Mr.Suresh.
719. The Complainant raised the complaint on 23.02.2019 and it was registered vide No.65965. In their evidence affidavit, they have not submitted when Mr.Suresh visited the Complainant to collect the damaged biscuit for analysis. In her complaint, the Complainant has pleaded that Mr.Suresh came to her house only on 05.03.2019 i.e., almost ten days after registering the complaint. Naturally as a protective mother, the Complainant would have been aghast to find a plastic bit embedded in the biscuit which was being fed to her young child. Despite taking the necessary steps of calling the toll free number, the Opposite Parties have been very deficient in not addressing the issue immediately. Moreover, they have not filed the quality control report pertaining to the batch of biscuits. Ex.B2 is not the proper Lab Report issued by the Opposite Party Company.
20. The Complainant has produced the Food Analyst Report vide Ex.A5 and the opinion is that the sample is of a plastic particle. The report also states that the sample was fit for analysis. This report has not been countered by the Opposite Parties and they have only denied it stating that the defects cannot be determined without proper analysis. The Opposite Parties have not provided the affidavit of their contact person who went to the home of the Complainant and claims that she refused to hand over the biscuit for verification.
21. The specimen sample that was received at the laboratory was an unadulterated sample as found by the Complainant. The Opposite Parties could have easily produced the mandatory documents kept by them to verify the quality of the batch of biscuits. The background and reputation of the Opposite Party Company is not a reason to presume that the products of such reputed companies are free from such "foreign bodies". Offering free biscuit packets as a goodwill gesture does not compensate the deficiency in service.
822. In the light of the above discussion, we consider that the appeal is liable to dismissed.
23. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs by confirming the impugned order dated 20.05.2022 passed in CC.No.105 of 2019 by the District Commission-III, Hyderabad.
The Complainant is at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited to the credit of this appeal together with accrued interest thereon, if any, after lapse of Revision time.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer on the System; corrected by me and pronounced by us in the Open Court on this the 25th day of February' 2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER(NJ)
Dated : 25.02.2026
*UC