State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd vs Inder Mohan Taneja on 25 February, 2008
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: 25.02.2008 First Appeal No.07/129 (Arising from the order dated 23.01.2007 passed by District Forum(North), Tis Hazari, Delhi in Complaint Case No.284/2006) The Director . Appellant Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd., Nirlon House, Worli, Mumbai. ALSO AT: Village Sankhol, P.O. Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar 124 507 Haryana. Versus Sh. Inder Mohan Taneja . Respondent 516, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor, ... President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President(ORAL)
1. On account of having found one strand of hair embedded in one of the biscuit in the packet manufactured by the appellant and purchased by the respondent, the District Forum has vide impugned order dated 23.01.2007, imposed damages of Rs.50,000/- for marketing such product which has put public health to hazard and is unfit for human consumption, out of which Rs.20,000/- was to be paid to the respondent and Rs.30,000/- was to be deposited with Delhi State Consumer Welfare Fund, and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. At the outset we may say that the District Forum has misconstrued the provision of sale of hazardous goods by treating only one biscuit embedded with hair out of 10-15 biscuits contained in the packet as hazardous goods are such which are manufactured at large scale and are consumed by thousands of consumers and not by treating a piece of biscuit containing hair strand and that too in one packet containing 10-20 biscuits. It was a case of negligence in manufacturing or packaging the product, the consumption of which could have caused some physical injury to the respondent.
4. It is stated by the respondent, who happens to be an advocate, that one of his clients consumed this biscuit and he vomited immediately therefore and it caused immense embarrassment or agony and suffering to the respondent. Respondent should have know that biscuit was not manufactured by him. He purchased it from the market and embarrassment was not a self created nature.
5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that some defective goods were sold to the respondent manufactured by the appellant and respondents client suffered and in the process appellant also suffered mental agony or harassment. In the given facts and circumstance of the case, in our view the lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- besides Rs.2,500/- as cost of litigation would meet the ends of justice. Rest of the order is set aside. The payment shall be made within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
6. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced today on 25th day of February 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Tri