Raman Kumar v. Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd.

against the opposite parties ( for short the OPs ) under Section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in services on their part.

2. The present complaint is being disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 64 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

3. Complainant on 12.3.2024 visited the shop of opposite party no.2 for purchasing some domestic items by paying Rs. 1015/-, which also included the Parle G ,Gold biscuit 1 kg for an amount of Rs. 126/- and Parle Glucose Biscuit for an amount Rs.90/-. It is submitted that when the complainant opened the sealed packets and consumed the same alongwith his family members, then suddenly one fly was found pasted in one of the biscuits. The said contaminated product caused illness and also caused hurt to the vegetarian feelings of the members. Thus alleging deficiency in service in selling such contaminated products, this complaint has been filed to give directions to the OPs to pay him Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

4. In the reply filed by the OP no.1, the claim of the complainant has been controverted by submitting that the product in question is FSSAT approved and certified and the complainant is required to give

2

certification of the said FSSAT, which was not produced by the complainant. Further it is submitted that the product of the OP Company is a multinational product having good quality and quantity. It is submitted that due to transportation, the seal of the packet becomes loose resulting into damage of the biscuits as well as in causing small holes in the packet for which there is no responsibility of the answering opposite party. Denying other allegations and any deficiency in service on their part, a final submission is made to dismiss the complaint.

5. In the reply filed by the OP no.2, it is submitted that it being the retailer has no liability as the product in question is manufactured by OP no.1. i.e. Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. The answering OP sells the said product as it is duly "FSSAI" approved with licence no.10013022002253. The packet in question was delivered to the complainant in a sealed and packed condition and there was no fault at the time of delivery. The problem if any arose after opening the packet. Denying other allegations and any deficiency in service on their part, a final submission is made to dismiss the complaint.

6. Complainant in support of his case tendered in documentary evidence his own affidavit and adduced certain documents i.e. photo copy of the invoice, pouch of biscuits packets and photograph contaminated biscuit clearly showing fly pasted on the biscuit. On the other hand OP

3

no.1 did not adduce any documents in evidence, rather stated that the reply filed by it be read in evidence of OP no.1. Whereas OP no.2 tendered affidavit Ex. OP-2/A and document Ex.OP-1/B and photocopy of Parle-G biscuit showing the certification of FSSAT.

7. We have heard both the counsel for both sides and carefully examined the case record. After considering the rival contentions and evidence, the Commission is of the considered view that the complaint has

merit and deserves to be allowed.

8. (Section 2 (10) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines defect as "any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard of the goods".

9. The complainant produced the product packet and photographs clearly indicating contamination. The OPs have not led any evidence to disprove the defect. Mere denial cannot override material evidence. Therefore, the commission holds that the product supplied was defective, constituting deficiency in service.

10. A retail seller is legally responsible for supplying products conforming to the declared net quantity, quality and such responsibility cannot be avoided.

4

11. In view of Section 2 (34) of the Consumer Protection Act,

2019,

which defines a 'product liability' to include every person who sells or distributes goods (product seller), therefore, the retailer cannot escape liability. The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ( 2016), Full Bench) has held that 'all persons in the supply chain of goods or services who have facilitated the transaction can be held liable". Accordingly, both the manufacturer and the retailer in the present case are held jointly and severally liable for the deficiency established on record.

12. The opposite parties failed to produce any evidence to rebut the claim of the complainant . Hence deficiency stands clearly proved.

13. In the light of the above discussion, the Commission holds that there is deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and both the manufacturer and retailer, being part of the supply chain, are jointly and severally liable.

14. Hence, the present complaint is allowed. The opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable in the matter and they are directed to refund Rs. 216/- to the complainant being the price paid for the impugned biscuit packets and to pay Rs. 2500/- as compensation

5

for mental agony, harassment and inconvenience alongwith Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses. These directions shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

15. If the order of this Commission is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to file execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite parties may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act, which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto Rs. one lac or with both. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rules and this order be promptly uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

21.11.2025.

Member, Member District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari. Redressal Commission, Rewari. (Nisha Yadav Stenographer)

6