M.S.SUBRAMANIAM Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint filed under Section 12 & 17 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 The details of complaint in brief as follows : Complainant being the Journalist, RTI activist, Consumer Protection Activist & Social worker, filed this complaint against the opposite party manufacturers and suppliers of the Kohinoor Brand of Condoms, for not providing the right specification and indication of the same on the covers of condoms sold which is a branded item where basic facts have been suppressed the specification applicable to Indian have not been adhere. Selling of uniform size with other countries specifications to all the consumers in India is most dangerous matter causing Aids, dissatisfaction, wrong matching and sexual dissatisfaction, unwanted pregnancy, psychological disorder, Family disharmony and other related problems and thereby directing the opposite parties to desist from such activity of deceiving public hence fort declaration of the suppliers as on date filing the complaint not fit for consumption/usage in India and its Indian customers and make a large scale advertisement to the effect and suitability with any applicable to a particular segment to whom the said specification is applicable and to award Rs.90 lakhs as costs and interest from the date of filing the complaint and direct the company to mention the specification according to preference of the consumers.

(2.) The opposite party filed the written version denying the allegations of the complainant and in the written version it is stated that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is not a consumer. The opposite party is not the manufacturers of Kohinoor condoms and the opposite party neither now as TTK Health Care Ltd is only a distributor of the products manufactured by TTK-LIG Ltd., which is a different legal entity. The complainant has not stated what is the standard of manufacturing required for the product and no proof is so that the product is defective and it for the defective products complainant should follow the procedure prescribed under the Act. The opposite party being the distributor has no particular knowledge about standard specifications and the process of manufacture of the product and is not competent to specify the same. However regarding the details of manufacturer TTK LIG Ltd., has given the affidavit giving all the details which is filed along with the version. The report filed by the complainant are nothing to do with the product manufactured by TTK LIG. TTK LIG or the opposite party is not deceiving the public as stated by the complainant since there is no manufacturing defect. Opposite party is not liable to pay any amount towards the imaginary figures of damages claimed by the complainant and the complaint to be dismissed with heavy cost under Section 26 of the Act for frivolous and vexatious complaint and thereby the complaint to be dismissed.

(3.) The complainant filed proof affidavit and his side documents Exhibit A1 to A4 are marked. For opposite party proof affidavit along with the documents Exhibits B1 to B7 are marked.