BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. DR. SURENDRA RAMKISHAN DHELIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sidharth Bawa, Advocate, for the appellant. The respondent has sent a letter dtd. 30/11/2021, stating therein that the case be decided on the basis of the papers already filed by him.

(2.) This appeal has been filed from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra dtd. 16/3/2015, passed in CC/106/2002, allowing the complainant and holding the appellant as guilty of committing negligence in preparing the bread and directing to pay/deposit Rs.2.51 lacs, as the compensation.

(3.) The respondent filed CC/106/2002, for compensation of Rs.7.51 lacs along with interest @18% per annum w.e.f. 16/4/2001. It has been stated in the complaint that Dr. Surendra Ramkishan Dhelia (the complainant) was a medical practitioner. Britannia Industries Limited (the opposite party) was a Public Limited Company and manufacturer of the various food items. The opposite party manufactured bread in brand name "Britannia Premium Bake Super Soft Deluxe Bread " and sold it, in the market. The complainant purchased one packet of "Britannia Premium Bake Super Soft Deluxe Bread " on 15/04/2001, for his guests including one child at his residence. When that bread was served to them for consumption, then the complainant noticed that few plastic pieces embedded inside several slices. The complainant prevented his guests from consuming the bread. The complainant lodged a complaint on 16/4/2001, on telephone at the Mumbai office of the opposite party. On 16/4/2001 at 3:40 PM, one Mr. A.C. Luis, an officer of the opposite party, came to the residence of the complainant. On examination of the slices of the bread, he confirmed that there were plastic pieces. Thereafter, he went back and again came at 5:45 PM, along with one Tendulkar. Both of them again checked the bread in the said packet and confirmed that there were plastic pieces inside the slices. However, they refused to give writing in this respect at that time. They assured that they would again come on next day along with their Senior Officer. Mr. A.C. Luis along with one Karamkar, Standard Manager and one Maniyar, Production Manager of the company came on 19/04/2001. Once again they inspected the bread and the packet and confirmed existence of plastic pieces in the bread. They collected few slices from the complainant. On the complainant insistence they gave a hand written receipt, acknowledging the fact of having taken the same with a note "prima facie paper like body was seen in number of slices ". They informed that this sample would be analysed in laboratory and the report would be given to him. The complainant received a letter dtd. 18/05/2001, signed by Karmakar and in the last portion of this letter he has written that "It is possible that during production, new unchecked mould might have found its way without cleaning by air-blast, which is the rarest of the incidence ". The complainant received another letter dtd. 31/05/2001, signed by Karmakar, mentioning therein that in spite of repeated analysis at couple of times, authentic reports on the genuineness have not been reported. When the complainant made further correspondence with the officers of the opposite party, then, they vide letter dtd. 8/6/2001, disowned the packet of the bread, being the packet of the opposite party. A copy of 'analysis report ' was also sent to the complainant. The complainant, vide letter dtd. 2/7/2001, lodged the protest against the analysis report. Thereafter, no reply was given to the complainant. The complaint was filed on the allegations that the opposite party has committed negligence in manufacture of bread.