IMPORTANT POINT
Defective Product – Vicarious liability of both Seller & Manufacturer.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 13.07.2021, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (the ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 505/2021, whereby the State Commission dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the Order dated 24.03.2021, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (the “District Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 21/2020.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Commission. Mondelez India Foods Private Limited is identified as the Opposite Party No.1 (Petitioner herein). Kumar Swamy is identified as the Complainant (Respondent No.1 herein) and Brindavan General Store is identified as the Opposite Party No.2 (Respondent No.2 herein).

3. The facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that on 10.01.2020, he purchased provisions, including four Cadbury Dairy Milk Crackle Chocolates, from OP- for a total of Rs.439, with each chocolate costing Rs.160. The transaction was documented vide Receipt No. 22283. Upon examining the chocolates at home, the Complainant found one chocolate (Batch No. K-91013 C10 PKD 10/2019) to be unfit for human consumption as it was damaged. He requested OP-2 to exchange the defective chocolate, but OP-2 refused. Consequently, the Complainant lodged a complaint seeking Rs.30,000 as compensation for the defective product and for the mental agony caused.

4. In reply, filed before the District Forum, OP-1 acknowledged the purchase of chocolates by the Complainant but noted that only one batch number (K-91013 C10 PKD 10/2019) was mentioned in the complaint, and no details were provided for other three chocolates. The Complainant did not produce a sample of the defective chocolate for examination by OP-1 or a Food Laboratory. OP-1 emphasized that the Complainant should have contacted them directly to address the defect, allowing OP-1 to examine the issue. OP-1 highlighted its status as an international company known for manufacturing quality candy products. They follow rigorous safety protocols, including Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), ensuring raw materials are checked thoroughly before packing and dispatching to distributors. The Complainant did not use the grievance call system provided by OP-1. OP-1 contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part and sought the dismissal of the complaint.

5. Despite being served with notice, the Opposite Party No.2 remained absent and was placed ex-parte.

6. The District Commission, vide Order dated 24.03.2021, partly allowed the complaint and directed as under:

“Order

1. The complaint of the complainant is greeted.

2. Within 30 days from this order opponent should give non-defective Cadburys diary milk chocolate in place of defective chocolate.

3. As compensation for mental stress experienced by the complainant Rs. 2,000/- to be given to the complainant within 30 days of this order, if failed to do so then 8% per annum interest to be paid from the date of this order till Rs.2,000/- is paid.

4. The opponent should pay Rs. 500/- to complainant as expenses charges.

5. This order copy to be given to both the parties free of cost as per rules. (Extracted from translated copy)

7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner filed an Appeal and the learned State Commission vide order dated 13.07.2021 dismissed the Appeal with the following observations:

“5. Heard the arguments of the learned Appellant. Issue of notice of this appeal on respondents hereby dispensed with.

6. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant apart from reiterating the grounds urged in the Memorandum of Appeal, contended that he is only Manufacturer and supplied the product properly and there is no allegation made against this Appellant. It is the liability of the Distributor to ex