THIRU.AMAN SACHAN S/... v. M/S.LION DATES IMPEX...

3

manufactured and marketed by them are produced under stringent quality control protocols, which include manual sorting, automated washing, vacuum packing, and thorough inspection of every batch. The entire production line is designed to be tamper-proof and is subject to regular inspection by both internal quality assurance teams and external auditors to ensure compliance with food safety standards and industry best practices. In response to the complainant's grievance, the opposite parties took immediate and proactive steps to address and resolve the issue in good faith. As part of this effort, they offered to replace the allegedly defective product and requested the complainant to share the batch details and retain the original packaging for testing and quality verification. However, despite this bona fide attempt at redressal, the complainant refused to cooperate and did not provide the necessary batch details or retain the product for scientific examination, thereby obstructing the process of verifying the veracity of his claims. The opposite parties 1 to 3 further contend that the complainant has failed to establish a direct causal link between the alleged consumption of the product and the medical symptoms he claims to have experienced. Notably, the medical treatment cited by the complainant was sought only on 30-05-2023, which is approximately 50 days after the alleged purchase and consumption of the product on 07-04-2023. Such an inordinate and unexplained delay in seeking medical attention undermines the credibility of the complainant's claims and casts serious doubt on the alleged correlation between the product and the health issues reported. Furthermore, the complainant has not produced any contemporaneous medical records, nor has he submitted a lab report from an FSSAI-authorised laboratory to substantiate the allegation that the product in question was unfit for human consumption or contaminated at the time of purchase. In the absence of reliable and admissible evidence proving negligence or defect in the product, the opposite parties submit that the claim for compensation is wholly untenable and liable to be rejected in its entirety. It is further submitted that the quantum of compensation sought by the complainant is highly exaggerated, disproportionate to the alleged grievance, and appears to be an attempt to misuse the benevolent provisions of consumer protection law to unjustly enrich himself and exert undue pressure on an ethical, responsible, and law-abiding manufacturer. The complaint lacks merit, is speculative in nature, and appears to be driven by mala fide intent.

4

In view of the foregoing, the opposite parties 1 to 3 prays for the dismissal of the complaint filed against them, and submit that no relief, compensation, or cost is liable to be awarded to the complainant under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

3. The complainant to prove his case had filed proof affidavit along with 8 documents and the same has been marked as Exhibit A-1 to A-8. The opposite parties 1 to 3 had filed proof affidavit without document.

4. The points for determination are : -

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?

2. If so to what relief the complainant is entitled for ?

5. POINT NO. 1

A summation and summarization, avoiding discursive delineation, of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of the complaint is that the complainant submits that on 07-04-2023, he purchased a 500-gram packet of Lion Seeded Dates from the 4th opposite party, who is engaged in the retail sale of the said product. At the time of purchase, the product appeared to be in standard packaging and bore no visible indication of contamination or spoilage. Trusting the brand's reputation and the retailer's credibility, the complainant proceeded to consume a portion of the dates. To his utter shock and dismay, upon further inspection of the remaining dates, the complainant discovered that dead cockroaches were present and visibly infesting the contents of the sealed packet. The presence of such hazardous foreign matter in a packaged food product constitutes not only a direct threat to consumer health and safety but also indicates gross lapses in quality control and hygiene during processing, packaging, and storage. Shortly after consuming the contaminated product, the complainant began to suffer from acute physical discomfort. He experienced persistent vomiting, severe gastrointestinal distress, abdominal cramping, and the onset of intense itching and allergic reactions, particularly noticeable on the palms and other parts of the body. These symptoms progressively worsened, resulting in the complainant being physically incapacitated and unable to fulfil both his

5

professional and personal obligations. The extent of the suffering adversely impacted his day-to-day functioning and overall well-being. In light of the severity of the issue, the complainant promptly lodged a formal complaint with the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). Responding to the complaint, FSSAI issued a notice via email dated 24-07-2024 to opposite parties 1 to 3, seeking their explanation regarding the quality and safety of the said product. In their reply, opposite parties 1 to 3 attempted to deflect responsibility by attributing the contamination to prevailing climatic conditions, stating that such environmental factors could lead to the proliferation of microorganisms over time. Rather than acknowledging their fundamental duty to ensure food safety and hygiene, the opposite parties offered to send a complimentary replacement package, thereby trivialising the serious health hazard caused by their negligence. Their response failed to demonstrate any genuine accountability or remedial intent. Upon investigation, FSSAI concluded that the product was in an insanitary and unsafe condition, thereby validating the complainant's allegations. The regulatory finding underscores the gross deficiency in the manufacturing, packaging, and quality assurance processes undertaken by the opposite parties. Moreover, due to the continued deterioration of his health, the complainant sought medical attention on 30-05-2023 at Apollo Hospital, where a comprehensive medical consultation and blood tests were conducted to assess the impact of potential food poisoning. The medical expenses incurred, along with the physical suffering and mental trauma endured by the complainant, further exemplifies the grave consequences of the opposite parties' negligence. The complainant contends that the actions and omissions of the opposite parties, collectively and individually, amount to gross negligence, deficiency in service, and a blatant violation of consumer rights as enshrined under the Consumer Protection Act. The physical injuries, mental agony, and emotional distress suffered by the complainant are a direct consequence of the reckless and indifferent conduct of the opposite parties in failing to adhere to basic food safety norms. Accordingly, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards physical suffering, negligence, and loss of normal life caused by the consumption of a contaminated product, compensation of Rs. 25,000/-

6

towards the mental agony, pain, emotional trauma, and distress suffered by the complainant and costs of the present complaint.

6. Remonstrating and refuting the complaint averments, the opposite parties 1 to 3 in their reply to the complaint, categorically denied the veracity of the allegations and averments made by the complainant. The opposite parties 1 to 3 submits that they are established and responsible entities engaged in the manufacture, processing, and marketing of food products, including dates. They affirm that their operations are governed by industry-standard practices and stringent quality control mechanisms designed to ensure the highest level of hygiene and consumer safety. The dates in question are subjected to a comprehensive process that includes hand sorting, automated washing, and vacuum sealing. Each batch undergoes meticulous inspection before being released to the market, and the packaging process is tamper-proof. In addition, routine audits are conducted both internally and by external independent agencies to validate the adherence to food safety norms and regulatory compliance. In light of these extensive precautions, the opposite parties assert that the probability of any foreign contamination, such as the presence of cockroaches, is exceedingly unlikely. Nevertheless, upon receipt of the complaint, the opposite parties responded promptly and in good faith. As part of their customer grievance redressal policy, they extended an offer to replace the allegedly defective product and requested the complainant to provide specific batch details and retain the original packaging for analysis and further investigation. However, the complainant declined to cooperate with this reasonable request, thereby impeding any possibility of product testing or factual verification. Such non-cooperation on the part of the complainant undermines the integrity of his claims and renders the alleged defect unverifiable. Moreover, the opposite parties submit that there exists no direct or substantiated causal connection between the alleged consumption of the dates and the medical condition claimed by the complainant. The complainant asserts that he purchased the product on 07-04-2023, but did not seek any medical attention until 30-05-2023, a delay of approximately 50 days. This considerable gap between the alleged consumption and the subsequent treatment raises significant doubts about the authenticity and credibility of the allegations. In

7

cases involving alleged food contamination, it is customary and necessary for the affected individual to seek immediate medical attention and preserve relevant medical records and product samples for scientific testing. The complainant has failed on both counts. Further, the complainant has not submitted any contemporaneous medical reports to corroborate the claim of food poisoning or allergic reaction allegedly caused by the product. Neither has any laboratory report from an fssai-authorised testing facility been filed to confirm that the product in question was contaminated or unfit for human consumption. In the absence of such essential and verifiable documentation, the allegations remain speculative and unproven. The burden of proof lies upon the complainant, and he has failed to discharge this burden. It is also submitted that the quantum of compensation claimed by the complainant is highly inflated, arbitrary, and lacks any reasonable justification. The sum of rupees two lakhs for alleged negligence and a further twenty-five thousand rupees for mental agony is wholly disproportionate to the nature of the incident, particularly when no credible evidence has been furnished to establish liability. The claim appears to be an attempt to misuse the remedial provisions under consumer protection law as a means to exert pressure on a reputed, ethical, and law-abiding manufacturer. The motives behind the complaint appear to be less about genuine redress and more about personal gain. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the opposite parties 1 to 3 respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Forum be pleased to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, as it is devoid of merit, unsupported by evidence, and contrary to the principles of equity, justice, and good conscience. The opposite parties further submit that they remain committed to upholding the highest standards of food safety and consumer satisfaction and deny all allegations of negligence, misconduct, or deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.

7. We carefully considered the rival contentions and the documents produced and placed before us by both sides.

8. We observed from records that this complaint arises from the alleged purchase of a 500-gram packet of Lion Seeded Dates by the complainant on 07-04- 2023 from the 4th opposite party. The complainant contends that the product was

8

found to be infested with dead cockroaches, and that consumption of the same led to serious health complications including vomiting, bowel distress, skin allergies, and itching. The complainant seeks compensation on grounds of gross negligence and deficiency in service, along with compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation.

9. In stark contrast the opposite parties 1 to 3, comprising the manufacturer and distributors of the product, have categorically denied any negligence or lapse in quality standards. They contend that the product undergoes rigorous quality checks and that the complainant failed to produce any concrete evidence linking the alleged health issues to the consumption of their product. They further allege non-cooperation on the part of the complainant in facilitating batch testing and product verification, and argue that the complaint lacks merit.

10. Furthermore, and in the alternative, the complainant asserts that the matter was brought to the attention of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), and that the packaged food item in question was allegedly found to be in an "insanitary condition." However, this assertion, on closer inspection, is wholly unsupported by any verifiable or admissible scientific evidence. In cases involving alleged contamination of food products, mere allegations, however strongly worded—are insufficient to sustain a finding of liability. The burden rests upon the complainant to furnish objective, scientific, and laboratory-based evidence capable of establishing, with reasonable certainty, that the product in question was unfit for human consumption and thereby caused the alleged harm. In this context, certification from a laboratory duly accredited by the FSSAI constitutes the minimum evidentiary threshold required to substantiate claims pertaining to food adulteration, contamination, or insanitary conditions. Despite the complainant's claim that the FSSAI was notified, no certified laboratory report, analysis certificate, or investigation findings from an FSSAI-authorized facility have been placed on record. The absence of such a document is not a mere procedural lapse, it is a foundational omission that critically impairs the verifiability of the complaint. Without such official documentation, the allegation remains unsubstantiated, anecdotal, and legally untenable. Moreover, it is a well-

9

established principle that the preservation of the product sample and its original packaging is essential to enable independent examination, whether by the regulatory authority, a Commission appointed expert or authorized FSSAI approved and authorized laboratory. This requirement safeguards the integrity of the investigative process and ensures that determinations regarding quality or contamination are based on empirical evidence rather than conjecture or retrospective assertions. In the present matter, the complainant has failed to retain the product sample, the original packaging, batch details, expiry date, or any identifiable marker that could facilitate independent verification of his claims. This omission precludes any meaningful investigation or objective confirmation of the alleged defects. The complainant's failure to preserve and produce the relevant physical evidence creates an irreparable evidentiary void, thereby nullifying any possibility of substantiating the alleged contamination through recognized scientific protocols. In the absence of a certified lab report, and with the destruction or non-preservation of the product and its packaging, the complaint lacks the minimum evidentiary rigor required under both the Food Safety and Standards Act and consumer protection jurisprudence. The allegations, therefore, stand as unverified, untested, and incapable of judicial or quasi-judicial scrutiny. Consequently, the complainant's auxiliary contention regarding FSSAI involvement does not enhance the credibility of the claim but rather underscores the procedural and evidentiary infirmities that pervade the entire complaint. Such lapses severely weaken the case and render the complaint liable to be dismissed for want of admissible and reliable proof.

11. We on perusal of the complaint observed that the complainant asserts that he consumed a portion of packaged dates on or around 07-04-2023, after which he allegedly discovered the presence of deceased cockroaches within the same packaging. He further contends that, subsequent to this discovery, he experienced severe health complications and was eventually diagnosed with food poisoning and associated symptoms. In support of these assertions, the complainant states that he sought medical attention at Apollo Hospital on 30-05-2023, where he purportedly underwent blood tests and related diagnostic procedures. However, upon critical scrutiny, this narrative is fraught with evidentiary gaps and lacks the

10

requisite temporal nexus between the alleged act and the ensuing medical condition. Most notably, there exists a substantial and unexplained delay of nearly fifty (50) days between the alleged consumption of the contaminated product and the complainant's first documented instance of seeking medical intervention. This delay is not merely procedural but is profoundly material, as it calls into serious question the causal link between the consumption of the product and the onset of the alleged illness. It is a well-settled principle in matters of product liability and consumer protection that temporal proximity between the consumption of a product and the manifestation of illness is essential to establish a prima facie presumption of causation. In the absence of such proximity, the claim becomes speculative and devoid of medical substantiation. In the present matter, no contemporaneous medical records have been adduced, such as hospital admission notes, diagnostic findings, or prescriptions dated shortly after 07-04-2023, to demonstrate that the complainant suffered from food poisoning or any related ailment within a timeframe that would reasonably support his allegations. Moreover, the complainant has failed to provide any plausible explanation for the inordinate delay in seeking treatment, nor has he clarified why no preliminary medical consultation was sought during the purported period of illness. The reliance on a singular hospital visit almost two months post-consumption, without any intervening records of health complaints, symptomatic treatment, or medical advice, renders the claim not only legally tenuous but also factually unsustainable. In the absence of prompt medical documentation or expert opinion linking the alleged contamination to the diagnosed condition, the claim rests solely on the unsubstantiated assertions of the complainant, which cannot meet the threshold of proof required to establish negligence or liability. Thus, in light of the foregoing, the complainant's allegations appear to be speculative, uncorroborated, and lacking in evidentiary integrity, warranting dismissal.

12. It is further observed that opposite parties 1 to 3, in a demonstrable act of good faith and consumer responsiveness, offered to replace the allegedly defective product and concurrently requested the complainant to furnish the batch number and retain the original packaging to facilitate an internal quality assurance review. Such a request is not only standard practice within the industry but is also a

11

necessary procedural step in enabling the manufacturer or distributor to trace the product through its production, handling, and distribution cycle. However, the complainant willfully declined to cooperate with this reasonable and procedurally essential request. His refusal to provide the relevant batch details or preserve the product packaging has significantly impeded the ability of the manufacturer to investigate the matter in a meaningful and fact-based manner. In matters involving allegations of contamination or defect in packaged food products, the chain of custody, product traceability, and physical integrity of the sample are critical for determining the veracity of the claim. By failing to preserve the material evidence and declining to engage with the remedial process proposed by the opposite parties, the complainant has undermined the evidentiary basis of his own allegations. This non-cooperation reflects not only a disregard for procedural fairness but also suggests a lack of bona fides in pursuing the complaint. It is settled law that a complainant must act in a manner that enables the opposing party a fair opportunity to respond and investigate; any action that precludes such opportunity weakens the claim substantially. Furthermore, this we are of the considered view that the nature of the defect alleged, specifically, the purported presence of deceased cockroaches in a sealed food product, cannot be conclusively determined on the basis of photographic evidence alone. While photographs may serve as preliminary indicators, they do not satisfy the evidentiary standard required for adjudicating cases involving allegations of food adulteration or contamination, especially in the absence of chain-of-custody documentation, laboratory analysis, or regulatory findings. We are of the perspective that photographs, by their very nature, are susceptible to manipulation, misrepresentation, or contextual ambiguity. They do not confirm the origin, batch, storage conditions, or handling of the product and cannot establish whether the contamination, if any, occurred during manufacture, post-sale handling, or through external intervention. Thus, in the absence of corroborating physical evidence or scientific analysis, reliance solely on photographs is manifestly inadequate for establishing liability in a case of this nature. In sum, the complainant's refusal to engage in the investigatory process initiated by the opposite parties, coupled with his failure to preserve the product and packaging, and his exclusive reliance on photographic submissions, has rendered the complaint factually deficient and

12

evidentially untenable. Accordingly, this conduct significantly detracts from the credibility of the allegations and weighs against the complainant in the overall assessment of the matter.

13. Additionally, and in the alternative, opposite parties 1 to 3 have placed on record comprehensive details of their standard manufacturing protocols, which reflect adherence to established norms of hygiene, safety, and quality control within the food processing industry. These procedures include, inter alia, manual sorting of raw materials, automated washing systems, vacuum-sealing of finished products, and batch-level quality inspections designed to detect and eliminate any deviations from the prescribed standards. The opposite parties 1 to 3 have further submitted that their manufacturing facilities are subject to routine internal audits as well as independent third-party inspections conducted by accredited external agencies, in accordance with industry regulations and best practices. These audits are aimed at ensuring continuous compliance with both domestic regulatory standards, including those set by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), and international benchmarks applicable to food safety and hygiene. In the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, these submissions give rise to a presumption of due diligence, good manufacturing practice (GMP), and reasonable care exercised by the opposite parties in the production, packaging, and distribution of the impugned product. It is a well-accepted legal principle that where a manufacturer demonstrates consistent adherence to robust quality control mechanisms, and where no material deficiencies have been established by the complainant through independent or regulatory investigation, a presumption of non-negligence and procedural regularity stands in their favour. Indeed, the complainant has not adduced any credible rebuttal to challenge the veracity or adequacy of these protocols, nor has any counter-evidence been produced, such as expert reports, regulatory non-compliance findings, or prior consumer complaints involving the same product line, to displace the presumption of conformity with safety standards. In such a scenario, bare allegations, unsupported by empirical or technical evidence, cannot suffice to impute liability to the manufacturer, particularly when the latter has demonstrated a proactive and documented commitment to quality assurance. Accordingly, the detailed representations made

13

by the opposite parties 1 to 3 concerning their manufacturing and quality control practices must be viewed as credible, relevant, and persuasive, especially in light of the complainant's failure to discharge the burden of proof that rests upon him. The evidentiary imbalance that results from this asymmetry further reinforces the conclusion that no prima facie case of manufacturing defect, negligence, or deficiency in service has been established against the opposite parties.

14. We are of the outlook that under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, a defect is comprehensively defined as any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, quantity, potency, purity, or standard of goods that render them unfit for their intended purpose. Correspondingly, a deficiency in service entails a demonstrable failure by the service provider to discharge their duty towards the consumer with the level of care, skill, and diligence that a reasonable person would expect under the circumstances. In complaints predicated upon allegations of defect in goods or deficiency in service, the onus probandi squarely rests upon the complainant. It is incumbent upon the complainant to adduce credible, cogent, and admissible evidence satisfying the following essential criteria: firstly, that the goods in question were indeed defective or deficient at the time of sale or supply; secondly, that such defect or deficiency was the proximate cause of the injury, damage, or loss suffered by the complainant, and thirdly, that the manufacturer, seller, or service provider was negligent or failed in their statutory or contractual duty of care owed to the consumer. In the present matter, it is manifest that the complainant has failed to discharge this evidentiary burden with the requisite degree of legal certainty. The allegations advanced are largely unsupported by any contemporaneous documentary evidence, independent expert opinion, or certified laboratory findings. Instead, the complaint relies solely upon oral assertions and generalized allegations, which, without corroboration, do not meet the threshold of proof required in consumer disputes involving product safety or quality. Critically, the complainant has also failed to preserve the allegedly defective product and its packaging, which is indispensable for enabling objective scientific testing, traceability, and forensic examination. This omission constitutes a serious procedural lapse and an evidentiary lacuna, significantly impairing the ability to

14

establish the presence of any defect or to ascertain the causal link between the alleged defect and the purported harm. The absence of such material evidence and failure to cooperate in facilitating independent or regulatory testing severely undermine the credibility and probative value of the complainant's case. In consumer jurisprudence, the preservation of physical evidence and timely submission of expert reports are fundamental requisites for substantiating claims involving product defects or service deficiencies. Therefore, in light of the complainant's inability to adduce any reliable and admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a defect at the time of sale, causation of injury, or breach of duty on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint must be regarded as factually unsubstantiated and legally untenable. Such deficiency in proof precludes any finding of liability against the manufacturer or seller under the Consumer Protection Act.

15. We upon perusal of the records, it is noted that the complainant has claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- on the grounds of alleged negligence, an additional Rs. 25,000/- purportedly for mental agony and suffering, as well as reimbursement of litigation expenses. However, as has been extensively examined and delineated hereinabove, the material on record is manifestly inadequate and insufficient to substantiate or justify the grant of such monetary relief. In the absence of any demonstrable harm, verified medical diagnosis, or credible and scientifically supported evidence establishing a causal nexus between the consumption of the impugned product and the alleged injury or illness, the claim for compensation remains entirely speculative. The principles governing compensation under the Consumer Protection Act and allied jurisprudence unequivocally mandate that awards of damages must be grounded in objective proof of loss or injury and cannot be predicated upon mere conjecture, uncorroborated assertions, or generalized claims of distress. Awarding pecuniary compensation in such circumstances would not only be contrary to settled legal principles but would also set a precedent fraught with the potential for misuse and unsubstantiated claims. Compensation is a remedy designed to restore or redress proven grievances, and in the absence of a cogent evidentiary foundation, any such award would be both legally unwarranted and inequitable. Consequently, having

15

regard to the totality of the evidence, or lack thereof, before this forum, the claim for compensation in the sums sought must be rejected as devoid of merit, and no monetary relief can be sanctioned in favor of the complainant.

16. In light of the above deliberation, it is incumbent upon the complainant to bear the burden of proof regarding the alleged deficiency in service attributed to the opposite party. It is well established that mere assertions contained within the complaint do not constitute evidence; rather, the complainant is duty-bound to present both facta probanda and facta probantia. The onus lies squarely with the complainant to furnish adequate evidence to substantiate their claims, a requirement that is conspicuously absent in the present case. The consumer complaint, as it stands, is devoid of the requisite facta probantia and, consequently, warrants dismissal on that basis alone. Given that it is the complainant who initiated proceedings before the Consumer Commission, the absence of demonstrable proof of deficiency precludes any liability on the part of the opposite parties for alleged shortcomings in service. Thus, without the requisite evidentiary support, the claims must be deemed unsubstantiated and, deserves to be dismissed.

17. We on perusal of the pleadings and records are of the considered opinion that first, the material facts constituting deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint filed by the complainant. Moreover, the initial burden of establishing the existence of a deficiency in service attributable to the opposite party rests squarely upon the complainant. The complainant has failed to fulfil this foundational obligation of proof. In legal parlance, the burden of proof only shifts to the opposite parties once the complainant has satisfactorily discharged their initial burden of demonstrating the factum of deficiency in service. It is imperative to note that mere allegations posited by the complainant cannot be regarded as

"the gospel truth," particularly in the absence of cogent and compelling evidence to substantiate the claims made. The lack of such evidentiary support renders the assertions unproven and insufficient to warrant any liability on the part of the opposite parties. Thus, without the requisite proof, the complainant's case remains unsubstantiated.

16

18. We at this juncture, it is both relevant and illuminating to recollect and refer to the judgement of the HON'BLE SUPREME COURT in the case titled

RANVEET SINGH BAGGA

VS

KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES

reported in 2000 (1) SCC 66, wherein it was held:

"6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any willful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent. The deficiency in service has to be distinguished from the tortuous acts of the respondent. In the absence of deficiency in service the aggrieved person may have a remedy under the common law to file a suit for damages but cannot insist for grant of relief under the Act for the alleged acts of commission and omission attributable to the respondent which otherwise do not amount to deficiency in service...... If on facts it is found that the person or authority rendering service had taken all precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances in the course of the transaction and that their action or the final decision was in good faith, it cannot be said that there had been any deficiency in service. If the action of the respondent is found to be in good faith, there is no deficiency of service entitling the aggrieved person to claim relief under the Act. The rendering of deficient service has to be considered and decided in each case according to the facts of that case for which no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Inefficiency, lack of due care, absence of bonafide, rashness, haste or omission and the like may be the factors to ascertain the deficiency in rendering the service."

17

19. We would like to place reliance on yet another judgement of the HON'BLE SUPREME COURT in the case titled as

SGS INDIA LTD

VS

DOLPHIN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

in Civil Appeal No. 5759/2009 vide its order dated 06-10-2021 had observed and held as follows

The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.

20. We having carefully examined the entirety of the pleadings, submissions, and evidentiary material placed before this forum, we are of the considered and unequivocal opinion that the complainant has manifestly failed to discharge the burden of proof requisite to establish that the product in question was contaminated or defective at the time of sale. Furthermore, there is no credible or admissible evidence to substantiate that the opposite parties acted negligently or breached their duty of care towards the complainant. Equally, the complainant has not demonstrated a direct and proximate causal nexus between the consumption of the said product and the alleged medical condition. In light of these findings, it is evident that the complaint is bereft of merit and is therefore liable to be dismissed in its entirety. Such dismissal is warranted not only on the basis of insufficient evidence but also due to the failure to satisfy the fundamental legal standards necessary to establish liability under consumer protection laws. Nonetheless, it is pertinent to record that the opposite parties have exhibited a commendable approach by responding promptly and proactively to the complainant's grievance. Their offer to replace the product in question underscores a bona fide intention to address consumer concerns in a responsible and customer-centric manner. This conduct reflects positively on the opposite

18

parties' commitment to upholding consumer rights and maintaining quality standards, notwithstanding the ultimate outcome of this proceeding.

21. In light of the deliberation made above, we conclude that the opposite parties are not guilty of any negligence or deficiency in service or engaging in unfair trade practices, as the complainant has egregiously failed to substantiate and establish his case. Accordingly we answer Point No. 1 against the complainant.

22. POINT 2

Having answered Point No. 1 against the complainant holding that the opposite parties are not guilty of deficiency in service, the question of granting any relief to the complainant does not arise in this complaint.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

This order is dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist, transcribed, typed by him and corrected, signed and pronounced by us in open Commission, today on th this 17 day of October 2025.

Sd/- Sd/-

(P.SHANMUGAPRIYA) (M.PIRAVIPERUMAL)

MEMBER-I PRESIDENT

Documents filed by the complainant:-

th Ex.A1 07.04.2023 Complainant purchased lion dates from 4 Xerox opposite party

Ex.A2 Complainant consumed & found cockroaches Xerox inside the package

Ex.A3 30.04.2023 Complainant lodged the complaint with customer Xerox 06.05.2023 care of OP1 to 3 & received reply from OP1 to 3 Ex.A4 05.05.2023 Complainant made complaint before Food safety & Xerox reply

19

Documents filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3:-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------NIL----------------------------------------------

Sd/- Sd/-

(P.SHANMUGAPRIYA) (M.PIRAVIPERUMAL)

MEMBER-I PRESIDENT