CADBURY INDIA LIMITED Vs. JAGRUT NAGRIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was opposite party No. 2. Complaint by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was filed, inter alia, alleging that respondent No. 2 had purchased chocolate manufactured by the petitioner from respondent No. 3/opposite party No. 1- dealer. On opening, chocolate was found infected. Respondent No. 2, therefore, approached respondent No. 1. Chocolate was packed in a bottle and sealed under a Panchnama and sent to the laboratory for testing. Microscopy finding of the Public Analyst was that on examination the sample showed the presence of crystallised matter and threads of insects web. After serving legal notice on the petitioner and respondent No. 3-dealer, complaint seeking certain reliefs was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which was contested by filing written versions by respondent No. 3 and the petitioner. In his written statement, the respondent No. 3 admitted of having sold the chocolate in question to respondent No. 2. In its written statement, the petitioner alleged that it is a reputed company engaged in manufacture and sale of chocolates, etc. Company adopts stringent manufacturing practice to the extent that the products are completely untouched by human hands and are heated on high temperature to ensure that it is devoid of microbial subsistence. It was further stated that in the complaint the batch number and the date of manufacture were not disclosed. Chocolates are to be stored in hygienic conditions. It is possible that respondent No. 3 may have stored the chocolates closed to the source of infection like grains, etc. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioner and respondent No. 3 to pay to respondent No. 2 an amount of Rs. 22 being the cost of chocolate; Rs. 20 being the Analyst's fee; Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and the cost by the order dated 20.12.2006. Dissatisfied with this order, the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by the State Commission by the order dated 24.4.2007. It is this order which is being challenged in present revision.

(2.) SUBMISSION advanced by Ms. Surekha Raman for the petitioner is that in the bill dated 4.3.2005 produced by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the batch number and date of manufacturing of chocolate are not given. Packet of the chocolate seems to have not been stored properly by respondent No. 3-dealer. Report of the Public Analyst dated 24.3.2005 was obtained behind the back of the petitioner and the award thus could not have been legally passed against the petitioner. As noticed above, the finding given by the Public Analyst is that the sample showed the presence of crystallised matter and threads of insects web. In all probabilities, this could have not been caused at the stage of storage by a retailer. Further, even if the chocolate was sent for analysis behind the back of petitioner, it was open to it during the pendency of complaint before the District Forum to have re-examined it by another Analyst which course of action was not adopted by the petitioner. In view of above report of the Public Analyst, the non-disclosure of batch number and manufacturing date in the complaint was of little relevance. On none of the said counts the order passed by Fora below can be said to be either illegal or without jurisdiction calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. R.P. dismissed.