Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member and Anup K Thakur, Member
Jagdish Prasad Sharma —Petitioner
versus
Managing Director,
Dabar India Ltd. and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.1971 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 03/11/2016 in Appeal No. 36/2015 of the State Commission Delhi)
Decided on 13.2.2018

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Swati Jaiswal, Amicus Curiae with Petitioner in person

IMPORTANT POINT
Pure honey does crystallize with the passage of time. It is only adulterated and contaminated honey which may not crystallize.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 21(b) – Food items- Petitioner/Complainant are that he had purchased two bottles of honey from Respondent/Opposite Party No.3, which was manufactured by Dabur India Ltd.—Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1. It was alleged that the bottles contained honey, which was impure, which was evident from the fact that the contents had coagulated (condensed) at the bottom of the bottles- manifestly clear that the pure honey does crystallize with the passage of time- Only adulterated and contaminated honey which may not crystallize - Revision Petition dismissed.
       Held: Different types of honey crystallize at different rates (from 1-2 months to more than 2 years). Some types of honey crystallize completely, while others do not undergo such a steady process. For example, it can be observed how in a jar of honey there is a crystallized layer on the bottom, and another layer of liquid honey on the top. Different types of honey differ in the size of the crystals formed. Basically, the faster the honey crystallizes, the finer the crystals are.”
       In view of the above, it is manifestly clear that the pure honey does crystallize with the passage of time. It is only adulterated and contaminated honey which may not crystallize.
       The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed;
       “Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora”.
       Thus, in view of the above discussions, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown in the impugned order to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity in dismissing the appeal preferred by the Respondents. Thus, the present Revision Petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. (Paras 11 to 14)
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

ORDER

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against the impugned order dated 03.11.2016, passed by the State Commission: Delhi (for short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.36 of 2015.

2. Brief facts of the case as per Petitioner/Complainant are that he had purchased two bottles of honey from Respondent/Opposite Party No.3, which was manufactured by Dabur India Ltd.—Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1. It was alleged that the bottles contained honey, which was impure, which was evident from the fact that the contents had coagulated (condensed) at the bottom of the bottles. Hence, the Petitioner filed a Consumer Complaint with a prayer that the Respondents No.1 and 2 may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000 being compensation and all costs to the Complainant.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondents. Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.3 admitted in their written statement that honey was purchased from his shop. The Respondents No.1 and 2 also filed their written statement denying the allegations. Further, they stated that the Petitioner was required to comply with the requirements of Section 13(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act and to file on record a report from a competent laboratory as regards purity or otherwise of the product, which was not done. They prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi (For short, ‘District Forum’) vide its order dated 04.12.2014 while dismissing the Complaint, observed as under;

“The complainant has based his complaint on the plea that the honey contained in the bottles purchased by him was impure and contaminated. According to him the fact that the honey is impure is evidence from the fact that the contents had got coagulated (condensed) at the bottom of the bottles which will not happen in the case of pure honey. The complainant has based his claim on his own experience in the field. He has however, failed to place on record any book/authority that pure honey does not coagulate even in winter. No report from any competent laboratory has been filed by the Complainant to prove that the honey contained in the bottles purchased by him was impure.

In the absence of the above substance, we cannot hold that the contents of the bottles, containing honey were impure and contaminated. Consequently, we hold that there are no merits in this complaint, which is hereby dismissed.”

5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, while dismissing the Appeal, in its impugned order dated 03.11.2016, observed as under;

“The Appellant has challenged the order on the ground that he requested the District Forum both in writing and orally to seize the bottle and send the same for examination to the competent laboratory to see its purity. To see the bonafide of the appellant/complainant we requisitioned the record from the District Forum and carefully gone through the record. We find no material placed on record that any request was made by the appellant complainant in this regard. It is true that appellant/complainant moved an application before this Commission for sending the bottles for laboratory test at the time of filing of the appeal but in our view now it is too late to send the bottles for Laboratory test as more than 3 years have been passed after purchasing of the honey bottles. Further the bottles although remained in his possession.

At the time of arguments the appellant /complainant sticked to his sole stand that honey is impure which is evident from the fact that contents had coagulated at the bottom of the bottle, and it does not happen in case of pure honey. Appellant/complainant has stated that he is stated so from his own experience. Even at the appeal stage appellant has failed to place on record any book/authority to substantiate his stand that pure honey does not coagulate even in winter.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTPure honey does crystallize with the passage of time. It is only adulterated and contaminated honey which may not crystallize.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Pure honey does crystallize with the passage of time. It is only adulterated and contaminated honey which may not crystallize.