NCDRC NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3566 OF 2006 (from the order dated 9.10.2006 in Appeal No.2137/2006 of the State Commission, Bangalore) Cadbury India Ltd. Office at No.19B B. Desai Road Mumbai 400 026. Petitioner Versus L. Niranjan R/o No.89, West of Chord Road, II Stage, 10th A Cross, 1st Main, Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore 86 Respondent BEFORE : HONBLE MR.JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Surekha Raman, Advocate 04.12.2006 ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Complainant purchased
a Cadbury chocolate for presenting it as a
birthday gift. Unfortunately,
when the said chocolate was opened, it
was found that
chocolate was infested
with worms and fungus. As it
was a birthday party,
the situation became
unpleasant.
He,
therefore, approached the District Forum, Bangalore
for compensation.
Before the District Forum it was contended by the petitioner that it is
multi-national company and is always complying with the norms prescribed by
various legislations, such as, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the
Standards of Weights and Measures Act etc.
The District Forum, on the basis of the application filed by the
complainant, sent the product to the Public Health Institute for analysis and the
report was obtained. As per the report,
it was infested with worms.
However,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-multi-national company
vehemently contended that if the chocolate is not kept in a cool condition, petitioner cannot
be held liable. She further submits that
the chocolate was sent to Public Health Institute for analysis after lapse of
four months and the same was in the possession of the complainant. She, therefore, submits that the petitioner is not
liable because the complainant has failed to establish that the chocolate was
infested with worms.
It may be
true that in a criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, petitioner
may get benefit of doubt for some
procedural lapse on the part of the complainant but before a Consumer Forum,
question which is required to be decided is why a small person, who purchased a birthday gift, would file a false
complaint against a multi-national company and litigate for a small amount not
only before the Consumer Fora but before the
Apex Court. In our view, there is no
reason to disbelieve the complainant who immediately approached the Consumer Fora with the chocolate which was infested with worms. Public Analysts report is a subsequent
aspect.
Regarding the
contention that such chocolates are required to be kept or preserved in a cool
condition which may require refrigerator, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submits that if a retailer or vendor of such chocolates
commits something wrong in not preserving it at appropriate place, manufacturer
is not liable. In our view, there is no
restriction by the petitioner that the retailer not having a refrigerator
should not sell such chocolates. It is
for the manufacturer to watch that unauthorized persons do not carry out the
business of selling such perishable articles
which may become hazardous for the health, if not properly
preserved. On the
contrary, before the District Forum,
petitioner
has given an undertaking that reasonable steps would be taken to see that
products are stored under hygienic
condition by providing visi-coolers and other storage devices to the
retail outlets.
However, it is pointed out that the duty of maintaining hygienic
condition is the primary responsibility of the Local Health Authority which issues licences
for storage to the retailers. It is true that it is the duty of the Local
Health Authority to
take steps and test such articles every now and then but unfortunately that
practice is not prevailing in our country for various reasons. But, that would not give licence
to multi-national companies to exploit the situation and take benefit by
contending that chocolate, in question, was sent after few months by forgetting
the fact that complainant himself has verified that chocolate was infested with
worms.
It is also
admitted that due to high fat content the chocolate is not conducive to fungal
growth and such occurrence can be associated with bad storage conditions, which
are largely prevalent at retail outlets.
The aforesaid admission makes it clear that with the bad storage conditions which
are largely prevalent at the retail outlets, such fungal growth
can occur. If
such is the
position, not only
Local Authority should take
action and verify such chocolates but also it is the duty of the manufacturer
that such things do not occur.
To prevent
this practice, we hope that petitioner, in their advertisements, as a matter of
routine, should make it clear that consumer shall not purchase such chocolates
from a retailer who is not having fridge or visi-cooler.
For
considering further contentions, notice to the respondent returnable on
14.3.2007.
Meantime,
petitioner shall deposit Rs.10,000/- as awarded by the
State Commission plus Rs.5,000/- as costs to the respondent for coming here,
with the District Forum.
J.
(M.B.
SHAH)
PRESIDENT
…
(RAJYALAKSHMI
RAO)
MEMBER
SG/8
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
(MENTIONED MATTER)
REVISION
PETITION NO. 3566 OF 2006
Cadbury India
Ltd. Petitioner
Versus
L. Niranjan Respondent
BEFORE :
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.B.
SHAH, PRESIDENT
MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI
RAO , MEMBER
For the
Petitioner : Ms. Surekha Raman, Advocate
8.12.2006
O R D E
R
Heard the
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Order dated 4.12.2006 is clarified.
Execution proceeding before the District Forum is stayed till further order on
the condition that Petitioner would comply the order dated 4.12.2006 by
depositing the amount with the District Forum.
….J.
( M.B. SHAH )
PRESIDENT
….
( RAJYALAKSHMI RAO )
MEMBER
Mk/mentioned matter
