MTR FOODS PVT LTD Vs. K A PADMANABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/OP has come in revision against concurrent findings of two Fora below. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner who submitted before us that the complainant had failed to produce any receipt of purchase of Rasam and Sambar powder and no evidence had been produced from the appropriate laboratory to prove defect in the goods. On 29.1.2010 learned Counsel for the petitioner was asked to file a certificate from the appropriate competent authority to the effect that the contents of Rasam and Sambar contained in packets were best to be used before 12 months as printed on the packets. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed before us a certificate dated 26.2.2010 from the petitioner that MTR products meet the shelf life as mentioned in the declaration panel and this held good for Sambar powder and Rasam powder also. The certificate filed by the Counsel for the petitioner has been issued after order dated 29.1.2010 and is a self-serving certificate and not from any independent authority. The certificate of Defence Research and Development Organisation is for the year 2001. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the declaration that the product is best for 12 months from date of manufacture has been incorporated on the packet in accordance with the Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon some authorities, which, in our opinion, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that he had purchased Rasam and Sambar powder of MTR product from a Kirana shop in the month of January, 2009. On the packet of the Sambar powder the date of manufacture was shown as June, 2008 and it was printed on the packet "best before 12 months from the date of manufacture". Likewise, in the Sambar powder packet, the date of manufacture is printed as July, 2008 and on the packet it was written "best before 12 months from the date of manufacture". When the complainant opened the packets, he saw worms in both the packets and he wrote a letter dated 28.1.2009 to the OP giving lot number and other details which were incorporated on the packets of Sambar and Rasam powder. The OP sent reply to the complainant on 30.1.2009 and requested to return the products for thorough check up. The complainant sent letter dated 17.2.2009 informing the OP that he will not return the products but shall produce the same before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and let the Forum decide where to examine the said packets either at Quality Control Laboratory or any other place. There was no response from the OP. The complainant again wrote letter dated 21.3.2009 and he also tried to contact over phone but, there was no response. Accordingly, he had approached the District Forum.

(3.) The complainant had produced the packets of Sambar powder and Rasam powder before the Consumer Forum for physical verification and the said products were kept in safe custody after inspection in the open Court. It was found that the sample contained plenty of worms. When the worms can be seen with the naked eye, it would not be necessary to send the same for laboratory test. Instead of that if the OP wanted the same to be examined through laboratory it could make a request for the same. There is one letter dated 31.1.2009 from Sr. Manager (QA) of the OP, Mr. Ramana of MTR Foods Pvt. Ltd. in relation to lot numbers of the Sambar. powder and Rasam powder wherein it is stated that the analyzed control sample which was intact had been analyzed and there was no defect. For each lot No. of product a certificate from competent authority should be there which fulfils all the requirements as prescribed by law. The OP could have got the said samples tested with the laboratory by making an application under Section 13 of the C.P. Act.