CADBURY INDIA LTD. Vs. KANTEPPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act") by Cadbury India Ltd., (for short "Cadbury"), is to the order dated 05.01.2010, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka at Bengaluru (for short "the State Commission"), in First Appeal No. 4241 of 2009. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 17.11.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bijapur (for short "the District Forum") in Consumer Complaint No. 101/2009, whereby Cadbury had been directed to pay to the Complainant, Respondent No.1 herein, a sum of Rs. 10/- as the cost of one piece of Cadbury Dairy Milk Chocolate, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- for the medical expenses, along with a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards costs.

(2.) Succinctly put, the facts giving rise to the present petition are: On 01.08.2009, the Complainant purchased two Cadbury Dairy Milk Chocolates, manufactured by Cadbury from its retailer, viz. Roshan Bakery & Sweetmart, Janata Bazaar Complex, Near Gandhi Chowk, Bijapur - Respondent No.2 herein, for Rs. 10/- against receipt. The Complainant gave one of the chocolates to his son and another to his wife to eat. He also had a small bite of the chocolate. However, while eating the same he found some worms and its eggs in the chocolate. Immediately, he stopped his wife and son from eating the same, but by that time they had consumed the chocolate. According to the Complainant, all three of them had nausea and vomiting. They had to be rushed for medical aid. After the first aid by a family Doctor, they were sent back to the home. Because of the trauma the family had undergone on account of consumption of the chocolates, the Complainant got a panchanama of the remaining portion of chocolates prepared and approached the Retailer for replacement of the same. The Retailer declined to oblige him. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of Cadbury and its retailer in supplying and selling contaminated chocolates, the Complainant filed the complaint in the District Forum, inter-alia praying for a direction to the Respondents to pay Rs. 10/- towards the cost of the Chocolates; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by him and his family members and Rs. 2,000/- as medical expenses incurred.

(3.) Cadbury contested the Complaint on diverse grounds. In its written version, it raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Complaint under the Act, on the plea that since the subject matter of the case fell within the purview of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, a purchaser of any food article is required to have the food article analyzed by the Public Analyst and take appropriate action in terms of Section 12 thereof. On merits, it was pleaded that: (i) the Complainant has failed to follow the procedure laid down in Section 13 (c) (d) and (e) of the Act, envisaging analysis or testing of the goods complained against; (ii) the purchase receipt does not show the item as "Cadbury Dairy Milk Chocolate" as it only mentions "Dairy Milk Chocolate"; (iii) Opposite Party No.2 was not the Retailer of the products manufactured by it; (iv) there were large number and variety of spurious products in the market, hence, the possibility of the chocolates in question being spurious could not be ruled out for which the onus of proving the same was on the Complainant; (v) no medical certificate had been produced by the Complainant indicating that he and his family did suffer from vomiting due to eating of the subject chocolates; (vi) the panchanama of the chocolates was conducted in its absence and, therefore, it cannot be relied upon; (vii) the District Forum lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint as the Head Office of Cadbury was located in Mumbai; and (viii) highest standards of manufacturing practices were being maintained while manufacturing various products.