M/S. NIVEA INDIA PVT. LTD. THROUGH MR. YOGESH SHROFF (FIANCE & SUPPLY CHAIN DIRECTOR), C/O BUSINESS SQAURE, 151 ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, CHAKALA ANDHER (EAST) MUMBAI Vs. DATTATRAY H. JOSHI & ANR. B/4

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.8.2012 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 520 of 2011, M/s. Nivea India Ltd. Vs. Dattatray H. Joshi & Anr. , by which, appeal was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No. 1 has purchased tube of 70 grams weight of Nivea Shaving Cream from opposite party No. 2/Respondent No. 2 on 2.6.2009 for Rs. 55.00, which was manufactured by opposite party No. 1/petitioner. After opening the tin of tube for shaving on next day i.e. on 3.6.2009, the complainant found that cream in tube has become solid and it is not coming out. The complainant inquired with the vendor, opposite party No. 2. However, he was told by opposite party No. 2 that the period of tube use is 24 months from manufacturing and use during that period is valid. The complainant could not shave by using Nivea cream and complainant has suffered financial loss as also mental agony. The complainant gave notice dated 4th June 2009 to the manufacturer opposite party No. 1. However, opposite party No. 1 did not give any reply to the said notice. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite Party No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that only complainant had bad experience in respect of such shaving cream. However, no other customer of shaving cream had experience of such nature. Opposite party No. 1 further stated that before filing the present complaint, the complainant ought to have contacted the opposite party No. 1. Opposite Party No. 1 showed their willingness to return the price of shaving cream tube to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

(3.) Opposite party No. 2 did not file written statement.