State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Heinz India Pvt. Ltd., vs Venkatesh M. S S/O. Late Sannaiah on 24 February, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/1732/2013 ( Date of Filing : 25 Nov 2013 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 22/10/2013 in Case No. CC/640/2013 of District Bangalore 1st & Rural Additional) 1. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd., 7th Floor, D-Shivsagar, Worli, Mumbai 400018 . 2. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. Manzurgarhi, Aligarh 202001 . 3. Food and Healthcare Specialities Basta Mandi, Paonta Sahib 173025 (HP) . 4. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. Sitarganj, Adhamsing Nagar, Uttar Khand 05 Rep. by MD . ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Venkatesh M. S S/o. Late Sannaiah R/at No. 37/267, R C Building, Manipal Country Road, Sangasandra (Hosur Main Road), Bangalore 560068 . ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 24 Feb 2023 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER APPEAL NO. 1732/2013 1. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd., 7th Floor, D-Shivsagar, Worli, Mumbai 400 018. ......Appellant/s 2. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd., Manzurgarhi, Aligarh 202 001. 3. Foor and Healthcare Specialities, Basta Mandi, Paonta Sahib 173 025 (HP). 4. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd., Sitarganj, Udhamsing Nagar, Uttarkhand - 05, Represented by MD. (By Sri G.V. Ashok) V/s Sri M.S. Venkatesha, S/o Late Sannaiah, R/at No.37/267, RC Building, Manipal Country Road, Sangasandra, (Hosur Main Road), Bangalore 560 068. .....Respondent/s ORDER
BY MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. The appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.22.10.2013 passed in CC.No.640/2013 on the file of 1st Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that he purchased one Complan Nutri Gro weighing 400 grams at a cost of Rs.241/- on 04.03.2013 from the shop of the Opposite Party and feed his child by mixing one spoon to a tumbler of milk and while preparing the second tumbler the complainant scooped another teaspoon of the product and he was shocked and surprised to notice with his naked eyes the product contained worms. The complainant approached the 5th Opposite Party had complained about the defect in the product. The 5th Opposite Party had not responded properly and he said that he is not responsible for the quality of the product and could not do anything that Opposite Party No.5 was only a marketing agent and it was Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4 who are responsible for the manufacture and quality of the product. The complainant purchased the Complan Nutri Gro by the 5th Opposite Party bearing No.G11922A and the manufactured date is 08/2012 and it is further mentioned on the container that the product best before use 12 months from the date of manufacture. Though the complainant had purchased the product Complan Nutri Gro on 04.03.2013 and immediately noticed that the product was unfit for human consumption and more specifically not fit for consumption of children in the age group of 2 to 4 years.
3. The complainant further submits that the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4 are liable for the quantity of product marketed by it. The product is spurious and contaminated and will cause health hazard to small children who consume the same. Therefore, the complainant has been deliberately and fraudulently cheated by the Opposite Parties on the basis of its reputation in market amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint.
4. After service of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel and filed version. The Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4 in their version contended that the Opposite Party No.1 is the Company that manufactures the product in question i.e. Complan Nutri Gro. The Opposite Party No.2 is the manufacturing unit of Opposite Party No.1 in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Opposite Party No.3 is the co-manufacturing unit of the Opposite Party No.1 in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Opposite Party No.4 is the manufacturing unit of Opposite Party No.1 in the State of Uttarkhand. The product Complan Nutri Gro is manufactured at the premises of Opposite Party No.2 or 3 or 4. The complainant mentions the Lot number as G11922A of the product in question. The pack in question was manufactured at the premises of Opposite Party No.4. Hence, the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 are not necessary parties to the complainant. The complainant had purchased Complan Nutri Gro weighing 400 grams at the cost of Rs.241/- on 04.03.2013 from the shop of Opposite Party No.5. The complainant alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods to obtain a sample of goods from the complainant. In the present case, no sample of Complan Nutri Gro has been received sealed and authenticated in the manner prescribed and the sample so sealed should be then referred to the appropriate laboratory along with direction for making an analysis or test at the time of filing the complaint as laid down Sec.13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act. No such procedure has been followed in the present case. The complainant also failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim of having purchased the product from the Opposite Party No.5.
5. The complainant has failed to adduce any evidence from a doctor or any hospital to substantiate his allegation that his child suffered from any inconvenience or illness on account of the alleged consumption of the product Complan Nutri Gro. The Opposite Parties declares that consumer feedback phone number and e-mail address on the every pack for the convenience of the consumers in case of any complaint. In this case no attempt was made by the complainant to get in touch with the consumer cell of the Opposite Party No.1 Company and the complainant had proceed to come before this Forum without even exhausting the option of the complaining to the consumer care cell of the Opposite Party No.1. The company has obtained good quality control systems and has obtained good quality control systems and has obtained ISO 22000 certification for its manufacturing units. The infestation of the product has happened due to negligence of the complainant by not following the storage instructions on the pack. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
6. In the version of Opposite Party No.5 contended that the complainant shall prove the said product contains worms and this Opposite Party was sold the said product to the complainant. The Opposite Party No.5 at no point of time was not sold such defective product in his business tenure. Hence, the allegations of the complainant is baseless. The product was filled in the tin, till this day no com from the public except complainant. If the complainant suspects the quality he has to approach the Opposite Party No.5 and Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4 for regarding its quality or approach Jurisdictional Government Authority. For this purpose the manufacturer has given full information on tins label enquiry regarding qualities complaint. The complainant has not produced the documents to show that he has enquired with the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 5 and the complainant has not suffered or injury using the Complan Nutri Gro product. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.5 and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7. After trial, the District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party No.1 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation along with punitive damages and costs and dismissed the complaint against Opposite Party No.5.
8. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellants/ Opposite Parties are in appeal. Heard the arguments.
9. Perused the appeal memo and Order passed by the District Commission and materials on record, we noticed that it is evident that the complainant as purchased the Complan Nutri Gro weighing 400 grams for Rs.241/- on 04.03.2013 from the Opposite Party No.5 bearing No.11922A and the manufacturing date is 08/2012 and the product best before use for 12 months from the date of manufacture. The allegations of the respondent is that after purchasing the product, immediately he noticed with his naked eyes the product contained worms, hence, the product was unfit for human consumption. When the respondent approached the shop/Opposite Party No.5 not responded properly and due to this the respondent was put to pain, tension and mental agony.
10. Per contra, the appellant contended that the respondent alleges defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or tests of the goods to obtain a sample of goods from the complainant also no such procedure laid down u/s 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been followed. Moreover, the respondent failed to adduce evidence from the doctor or any hospital to substantiate his allegation that his child suffered from any illness or inconvenience. Moreover, an application on the product has happened due to negligence of the respondent by not following the storage instruction.
11. Perused the certified copy of the order sheet of the District Commission we noticed that the case was registered in District Commission on 31.03.2013 and the next date of hearing was 01.04.2013 and on the same day the District Commission mentioned in the order sheet that "Case called out, advocate for complainant present. Heard the complainant. Moreover we have seen the contents in the box and we find some small worms in the Complain Nutri Gro powder. The case is admitted. It is hereby ordered to send " COMPLAN NUTRIGRO " Container bearing No.G11922A 08/12 13.16 weighing about 400 grams placed before us with a sealed cover to the Director, CFTRI, Mysore for testing of the contents inside the box i.e., COMPLAN NUTRIGRO powder along with the entire papers to obtain proper report. The expense will be borne by the complainant and thereby directed to deposit Rs.3,000/- to this Forum as lab testing fee. On submission of the testing report necessary fee will be paid. Simultaneously issue notice to OPs returnable by 02.05.2013."
It means at the first instance the District Commission had seen worms in the container and they sent the container to the Director, CFTRI, Mysore for testing with sealed cover as per Sec.13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, to the order of the District Commission, CFTRI, Mysore sent back the product as per letter dt.09.05.2013 and directed to sent the product as per letter dt.09.05.2013 and directed to sent the product to Chief Food Analyst Laboratory, State Public Health Institute, Seshadripuram, K.R. Circle, Bangalore. Subsequently the product was sent to the same laboratory and report was issued which reveals that samples sent for analysis emits musty odor and it contains living insects, dead insects and worms and placed the opinion that the sample sent for analysis is unfit for human consumption.
" Sec. 13 (1) (c) states that the " where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of 45 days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum. "
Hence, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Commission has followed the right procedure. Moreover, the respondent has opened the container for feeding to his children and he saw the worms with his naked eyes and also when the case was filed by the respondent before the District Commission, the District Commission also noticed worms in the container, hence, selling of such products which is unfit for human consumption and also health hazardous amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Moreover, while preparing the second tumbler, the respondent scooped another tea spoon of the product and he noticed that the product contained worms means still the respondent has not given tumbler of the product to consume his children. Hence, there is no question arises to any illness suffered to the children of the respondent. However, he was cared that if the product was given to the children un-noticedly then there would be consequences which would be lead mental agony and tension to the respondent. Moreover, the date of expiry of the product is 12 months from the date of manufacture i.e. August 2013. The complainant has filed a complaint in the District Commission on 31.03.2013 and on the same day the District Commission has noticed the worms in the product. The expiry date indicates the " life and stability of the product " also the lab report dated May 2013 reveals that the worms are in the product which shows that the product has no stability and life and it is unfit for human consumption. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the District Commission has rightly appreciated the report of the Chief Food Analyst Laboratory, State Public Health Institute, Seshadripuram, K.R. Circle, Bangalore and passed an order which is just and proper. No interference is required. Hence, the following;
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KCS* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER