Upholding an order passed by the Karnataka state consumer disputes redressal commission, the national consumer disputes redressal commission (NCDRC) directed Mondelez India Foods Pvt Ltd to give non-defective Cadbury Dairy Milk Crackle chocolate in place of defective chocolate and pay Rs2,500 as compensation and costs to the consumer.
In an
order earlier this month, the NCDRC bench of air vice-marshal (AVM) J Rajendra (retd) (presiding member) says, "The petitioner (Mondelez) has not brought out anything substantial in the present revision petition other than asserting the liability, if any, of Brindavan General Store in the matter as well as the credibility of the complaint that only one batch noK-91013 C10 PKD 10/2019 was mentioned without details for other three chocolates and no sample of defective chocolate was produced for examination. The district forum passed a well-reasoned order dismissing the complaint and the state commission dismissed the appeal by well-reasoned order."
The case is related to one damaged Cadbury Dairy Milk Crackle chocolate that was unfit for human consumption. On 10 January 2020, Mysuru-based Kumaraswamy MR bought four Cadbury Dairy Milk Crackle chocolates from Brindavan General Store for Rs439. After examining the chocolates at home, he found one chocolate (batch No. K-91013 C10 PKD 10/2019) to be unfit for human consumption as it was damaged. When he asked to exchange the defective chocolate, Brindavan General Store (from where he bought the chocolates) refused.
Mr Kumaraswamy then filed a complaint against Mondelez and Brindavan General Store, seeking Rs30,000 compensation for the defective product and mental agony.
Mondelez emphasised that Mr Kumaraswamy should have contacted them directly to address the defect and allowed them to examine the issue. "Mr Kumaraswamy did not use the grievance call system provided by the company. There was no deficiency in service on our part and the complaint should be dismissed," the counsel for Mondelez says. Brindavan General Store remained absent and was placed as ex-parte.
While allowing the complaint, the Mysore district consumer disputes redressal commission directed Mondelez to give non-defective Cadbury Dairy Milk chocolate in place of defective chocolate to Mr Kumaraswamy. The Cadbury maker was also asked to pay Rs2,000 as compensation and Rs500 as expenses.
Aggrieved by the order, Mondelez filed an appeal before the state commission. On 13 July 2021, the state commission dismissed the appeal. It noted that the findings recorded by the district commission, by imposing liability both on the manufacturer and seller of the product while awarding compensation, were proper.
"It cannot be said that liability is only on the distributor not on the manufacturer, since, till the product reaches the consumer, there is a vicarious liability on the manufacturer also. Thus liability gets fixed equally, both on the manufacturer as well as seller," the state commission says.
Mondelez then approached NCDRC with its revision appeal. It contended that the state commission erroneously concluded that the manufacturer has vicarious liability until the product reaches the consumer. "The district commission erroneously concluded 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice' without explicit pleadings by the complainant. We follow rigorous safety protocols, including hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP), ensuring that raw materials are checked thoroughly before packing and dispatching to distributors."
The bench of AVM Rajendra (retd) noted that in the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of NCDRC is limited.
"From the facts stated, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the state commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Consumer Act," he said.
(Revision Petition No694 of 2021 Date: 16 August 2024)
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26131257/