TN : Consumer Forum fines FBO for selling substandard sweet


Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum orders compensation for hair in Kulfi


The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed Verka, the flagship brand of Punjab’s state-owned cooperative Milkfed, to refund Rs 25 and pay Rs 3,000 as compensation for harassment caused to Sector 19 resident after a hair strand was found in an ice cream he bought from its booth. The Verka authorities were also asked to deposit Rs 7,000 with Institute for The Blind, Sector 26, as penalty for the irregularity in a first of its kind order.
Anshul Arora, a resident of Sector 19, said he had purchased one “Malai Kulfi” from Verka booth for Rs 25 on December 25, 2016. He found a hair stand and immediately informed the salesman, who referred the matter to the head of the marketing team.
The matter was reported to the police. A daily diary report (DDR) was lodged. A report from a food analyst in Haryana was sent to food safety officer, Government Multi-specialty Hospital, Sector 16. It was proved that the sample of kufli in the poly pack contained a small piece of hair.
The complaint was filed against Verka booth in Sector 19, Verka milk plant in Industrial Area and Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited, Sector 34.
In its reply, Verka denied hair was inside the kulfi. It stated that the strand might have stuck to the kulfi because of the windy weather and due to a barber’s shop near the booth. Verka also stated that the alleged incident happened on December 25, 2016, and the complainant had taken the sample to laboratory for checking after two days. Verka authorities further stated that it might be possible that the plastic bag in which the sample was stored was containing a hair.
The forum held the pleas taken by Verka that the hair found inside the kulfi might have stuck because of windy weather and due to barber’s shop nearby was highly absurd.
How can a hair from a barber’s shop stick in an ice-cream packed in double packing, the forum asked. The other plea taken by them that it might be possible that the plastic bag in which the sample was stored was containing a hair, was stated to be “not worthy of belief as it is not reported in the report of the food analyst, Haryana, that hair in the sample of kulfi was stuck on it, rather it is reported that the sample contains a piece of hair.”

Pepsico fined as dead insects seen in Mirinda bottle

Insects in bottle : Consumer Forum asks Bisleri to pay up

Observing that “it should have been serious and concerned about manufacturing of hygienic consumable commodity”, Bisleri International Pvt Ltd has been directed by the Consumer Forum to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000 to a retailer who found insects in a packaged water bottle he had purchased for sale at his store.

‘Human life at peril’

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum said that though the contents of the bottle were not consumed by anyone, human life was put at risk and directed the company to pay the compensation to the complainant towards harassment and litigation expenses.

“Admittedly the bottle was not consumed by anyone but obviously it contained foreign particulars and the human life was at peril. The O.P-2 (Bisleri International) should have been serious and concerned about manufacturing of hygienic consumable commodity. The complainant suffered mental agony and litigation expenses for which he needs to be adequately compensated,” said the Forum.

Properly sealed bottle

“We are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met, if the complainant is awarded for a sum of Rs. 15,000 as compensation towards harassment and litigation expenses,” it ordered. The case dates back to 2013.

The complainant in this case ran a small store at Boulward road. In June, 2013, he purchased 10 boxes of Bisleri bottles from an authorised dealer of Bisleri for sale at his store.

On checking the bottles, he found insects and worms in one of the bottles which was properly sealed. He then approached the dealer who did not pay any heed forcing him to approach the company.

Visit by executive

The complainant then filed a complaint before the District Forum. Bisleri appeared before the Forum and said one of its executives had visited the complainant asking him to give the water bottle in question for sample analysis and tests. It said the complainant refused to hand over the bottle and demanded heavy compensation.

The company also told the Forum that it has come to know of the duplicacy of the water bottles in its brand name and is in the process of lodging a complaint against the offenders.


Tv9 Gujarat – Insect found inside Bisleri water bottle : Mumbai

பன்னீர் சோடாவில் தவளை : ரூ.12 ஆயிரம் நஷ்டஈடு


தவளை இறந்து கிடந்த பன்னீர் சோடாவை குடித்த சிறுமிக்கு, நஷ்ட ஈடாக, 12 ஆயிரம் ரூபாய் வழங்க, நுகர்வோர் கோர்ட் உத்தரவிட்டு உள்ளது.
கடலுார், திருப்பாதிரிப்புலியூரைச் சேர்ந்த, சுமதியின் மகள் சூர்யா, 12. கடந்த 2014 ஜூலை, 22ல், போடிசெட்டி தெருவில் உள்ள கடையில், பன்னீர் சோடா வாங்கிக் குடித்தார். சோடா துர்நாற்றம் வீசியதால், பாட்டிலை பார்த்த போது, தவளை குஞ்சு இறந்து கிடந்ததை கண்டு, வாந்தி எடுத்து மயங்கி விழுந்தார். பின், கடலுார் அரசு மருத்துவமனையில் சிகிச்சை பெற்றார்.
இதை தொடர்ந்து, சிறுமி குடித்த சோடாவை தயாரித்த சோடா கம்பெனியை, உணவு பாதுகாப்பு அதிகாரிகள் ஆய்வு செய்து, கம்பெனி உரிமையாளருக்கு, ‘நோட்டீஸ்’ வழங்கினர்.
மேலும், சிறுமியின் தாய் சுமதி, கடலுார் நுகர்வோர் கோர்ட்டில் வழக்கு தொடர்ந்தார். வழக்கை விசாரித்த நீதிபதி மோனி, உறுப்பினர் எழிலரசி ஆகியோர், ‘தவளை இறந்து கிடந்த சோடாவை குடித்து, பாதிக்கப்பட்ட சிறுமிக்கு ஏற்பட்ட மன உளைச்சலுக்காக, 10 ஆயிரம் ரூபாய், வழக்கு செலவிற்கு, 2,000 ரூபாயை, சோடா கம்பெனி உரிமையாளர், இரு மாதங்களில் வழங்க வேண்டும்’ என உத்தரவிட்டனர்.

NCRC – Hotel ordered to pay compensation for charging more than MRP



(Against the order dated 09.01.2006 in Appeal No. 974 of 2005 of the

Gujarat State Commission, Ahmedabad) 

Hotel Nyay Mandir

National Highway No.8

Zadeshwar Road

Bharuch                                                       … Petitioner/Opp. Party No.1




Ishwar Lal Jinabhai Desai

79, Ami Adarsh Society

Athwa Lanes

Surat                                                           …  Respondent/Complainant






For Petitioner/Opp. Party No.1             :         Mr. B.S. Supehia, Advocate

                                                                   Mr. K.K. Shukla, Advocate

                                                                   Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Adv.

For Respondent/Complainant      :         Nemo

Pronounced on 14th December, 2010


Per S.K. Naik, Member

This revision petition has been filed by Hotel Nyay Mandir, the opposite party no.1 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bharuch (District Forum for short) against the order dated 09.01.2006 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (State Commission for short), vide which the State Commission while dismissing their appeal and also imposing a cost of Rs.6000/- on them, has upheld the finding recorded by the District Forum.  The District Forum vide its order dated 18.08.2005 had allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant and directed the petitioner/opposite party no.1 to refund the amount of Rs.22/- being the excess amount charged towards cold drinks served to the complainant and also pay Rs.5000/- and Rs.1000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation respectively.  Besides, the District Forum had also directed the petitioner/opposite party no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to be deposited in a Consumer Welfare Fund within a period of 30 days.  

Brief facts of the case, as alleged by the complainant, are that on 14.05.2003 he purchased four bottles of cold drink ‘MIRINDA’ for which the petitioner/opposite party no.1 charged excessive amount of Rs.72/- whereas the actual cost of one bottle was Rs.12.50 ps.  The complainant alleged that the petitioner/opposite party no.1 ought to have charged Rs.12.50/- per bottle as it was the actual price appearing on the label of the bottle butit had charged Rs.18/- per bottle.  Taking this sole ground and pleading deficiency in service the respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum praying for (i) refund of Rs.22/- charged in excess from him; (ii) call for the figures of sale of cold drinks for the last three years at the place of petitioner hotel and direct them to deposit the differential amount as donation with any consumer association; (iii) 12% interest on the amount of refund; and (iv) Rs.5000/- as compensation.  The respondent/complainant had also impleaded Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. as opposite party no.2 in the array of the complaint filed by him but no relief was claimed against them.  The District Forum after hearing the arguments of the parties allowed the complaint in the manner referred to above. 

The petitioner/opposite party no.1 not satisfied with the order of the District Forum filed an appeal before the State Commission, who too did not find any merit in the same and dismissed it with a cost of Rs.6000/-.

Hence, this revision petition by the petitioner/opposite party no.1. 

While Mr. B.S. Supehia, Advocate, Mr. K.K. Shukla, Advocate and Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Advocate have appeared on behalf of the petitioner/opposite party no.1, the respondent/complainant has filed an affidavit in response to the revision petition and further in response to the notice dated 12th of August, 2009 issued by the Registry for his appearance, in which he has regretted his inability to appear before this Commission because of his “bad health and advance age”.  We have accordingly heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the affidavit filed by the respondent/complainant in response to the revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the State Commission both on facts and law.  On the facts, while he does not dispute that the respondent/complainant had purchased four bottles of soft drink on 14th of May, 2003, but the drink sold was FANTA and not MIRINDA as claimed by the complainant.  He further contends that the cost of each bottle of FANTA was Rs.15/- and the petitioner had charged an additional amount of Rs.3/- per bottle as service charges for the facilities which the hotel extended to the consumers.  According to him, the cost each bottle of the soft drink including the service charges was prominently displayed on either side of the wall to the entry of the hotel.  He, therefore, submits that the respondent/complainant having full knowledge of the price to be paid including the service charges could not turn around and allege deficiency in service on part of the petitioner.  This contention of the leaned counsel can straightaway be rejected as the petitioner has not advanced this plea before the State Commission as would be evident from the memorandum of appeal which is at page 16 of the paper-book.  No new ground can be permitted to be taken at the stage of revision.  Besides, the District Forum in its order has clearly held that the computerized bill issued to the respondent/complainant made no mention of any service charges separately.  It has also held that the consumer had produced the cold drink labels of MIRINDA which remained unrebutted.

On the point of law, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the same contention which was raised before the State Commission.  It has been contended that the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was under Section 2(1)(b)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as would be evident from his narration that he has filed the same for and on behalf of numerous consumers having the same interest.  It was, therefore, necessary for him to have obtained prior permission of the District Forum before filing of the complaint as mandated under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act.  Further, as per Section 13(6) of the Act, the provision of Rule 8, Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was applicable and, therefore, the complaint being under Section 2(1)(b)(iv) of the Act could not be entertained without the permission of the District Forum and without following the provision of Rule 8, Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure.  We have considered this submission, painstakingly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner.  Suffice it to say that these very arguments were raised before the State Commission, who in its order dated 9th of January, 2006 has very elaborately discussed the same from para 7 to para 12 of its order.  We are in agreement with the view expressed by the State Commission that provision of Rule 8, Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to cases where there are large number of specified persons who can be identified and who can have their claim canvassed against other parties or defence set up against suitor, while after the amendment of the Consumer Protection Act (Act of 2002) which came into force on 15th of March, 2003, Section 14 of the Act says that if the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party to do one or more things that have been specified in Clauses (a) to (i).  Clause (hb) has been introduced by the aforesaid amendment act which reads “to pay such sum as may be determined by it, if it is of the opinion that loss or injury has been suffered by a large number of consumers who are not identifiable conveniently.  The State Commission has rightly distinguished the present complaint as a class action maintainable under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and would not attract the provisions of Rule 8, Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure.  Thus, even on the point of law, we do not find any infirmity with the order passed by the State Commission.  Reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar [(2008) 4 SCC 504] is misplaced, inasmuch as in that case the complainant had pleaded that he was filing a petition in public interest and had made no allegation with regard to any loss suffered by him whereas in the case in hand the complainant has made out a case of unfair trade practice resulting in not only loss to him but loss to a large number of unidentifiable consumers.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that amount of Rs.6000/- has already been paid to the respondent/complainant.  If that is so, the petitioner is directed to comply with the rest of the order passed by the State Commission within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order.

The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.


(B.N.P. SINGH, J.)






Maggi noodles row: Govt drags Nestle India to consumer court over unfair trade practice

maggi noodles ban

Clamping down further on Nestle over Maggi issue, government has dragged it to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) for “unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements” and may seek financial penalties among other actions.

The development comes amidst the Indian unit of the Swiss multinational withdrawing Maggi from the markets after several states banned the famous ‘2-minute’ instant food brand as tests showed them containing taste enhancer MSG (Mono Sodium Glutamate) and lead in excess of the permissible limits.

Besides, central food safety regulator FSSAI has ordered recall of all variants of Maggi noodles from the market, terming them “unsafe and hazardous for human consumption”.

“On behalf of the Indian consumers, the Department of Consumer Affairs has now filed a petition in the NCDRC. It is based on the order of FSSAI saying that Nestle indulged in unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements,” a source told PTI.

The source further said: “We have sought Additional Solicitor General’s advice in this matter and he will appear on behalf of the government in NCDRC.”

When asked if the government is also seeking monetary damages, the source said: “If NCDRC finds the firm was on the wrong side, it has the power to impose financial penalty.”

Last week, the government had filed a complaint on its own with the NCDRC, using a provision for the first time from the nearly three-decade-old Consumer Protection Act.

Describing the alleged lapses related to food safety standards in Maggi noodles as a “serious issue”, Food and Consumer Affairs Minister Ram Vilas Paswan had also said the NCDRC will investigate the matter and take appropriate action.

Delhi, Maharashtra, Punjab, Assam, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Jammu and Kashmir, Gujarat, Uttarakhand and Goa are the states that have banned Maggi noodles amid mounting food safety concerns and several laboratory tests reporting excessive lead in it.


Maggi Row: CAIT Demands Action Against Amitabh, Madhuri, Preity

Noting that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has commenced proceedings against Maggi noodles, the Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) on Sunday demanded action against its brand ambassadors and the officials, too, who approved the product.

In a communication to union Consumer Affairs Minister Ram Vilas Paswan and Health Minister J.P. Nadda, the CAIT said: “When proceedings against Maggi are launched by the FSSAI, why is no action being taken against its brand ambassadors and the chain of officials who approved the product despite it having either deficiencies or exaggerated claims.”

In a press release here, the CAIT said it is worried as lakhs of traders across the country dealing in fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) products are suffering losses due to the Maggi controversy since it has damaged the confidence of consumers and the traders as well.

“The brand ambassadors of Maggi have violated section 24 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and, therefore, proceedings must be initiated against them also besided taking action against the manufacturer,” CAIT national president B.C. Bhartia and secretary general Praveen Khandelwal told the ministers, according to the release.

They urged Paswan and Nadda to take immediate cognizance of the issue and issue appropriate directions to the authorities concerned.

Maggi brand ambassadors include Bollywood actors Amitabh Bachchan, Madhuri Dixit and Preity Zinta.

Maggi noodles — manufactured by the multinational Nestle — is facing flak after its samples were found to contain excessive lead higher than permissible limits. A number of states in India have banned the product while others are awaiting results of laboratory tests.