STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR First Appeal No. A/17/532 (Arisen out of order dated 26/09/2017 in case No. RBT/CC/11/587 of Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur)

Nilesh S/o. Marotrao Nagolkar, R/o. Plot No. 26, Joshi Layout, Subhash Nagar, Hingna Road, Nagpur. ...........Appellant(s)

Versus

1. Haldiram Food International Limited, 20 Km. Stone, Village Gumthala, Bhandara Road, Nagpur.

2. Haldiram Food International Limited, 880, Small Factory Area, Bhandrara Road, Nagpur-08.

...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI S. KAPSE PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE MEMBER PRESENT: None for the appellant. Adv. M.R. Raut for the respondent.

Dated : 22 Jan. 2025 Final Order / Judgement (Delivered on 22/01/2025)

PER MS. S.D. WANDHARE , HON’BLE MEMBER.

1. The appellant namely Nilesh Marotrao Nagolkar has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 challenging the order passed on 26/09/2017 in Consumer Complaint No.RBT/CC/11/587 (hereinafter it is referred to in short as “impugned order”) of the learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur (hereinafter it is referred to in short as “learned Additional District Forum”) by which the complaint filed by appellant being complainant came to be dismissed.

2. The parties of the appeal are hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature as complainant and opposite parties respectively for better appreciation.

3. The facts that emerge from the original complaint are that the complainant ran a business under the name of M/s. Star Multiple Enterprises and has been a regular consumer of Haldiram Food Products for five years and regularly purchases Phalhari Chiwda and Khattameetha Chiwda for personal and family use. On 26.03.2011, the complainant purchased a packet of Khattameetha Chiwda (30 grams, Rs.5, Batch No.11 R-299, packed on 08.03.2011) and a packet of Phalahari Chiwda (30 grams, Rs.5, Batch No.11 R-294, packed on 13.03.2011). Additionally, on the same day, he purchased a packet of Phalahari Chiwda (Rs.10, Batch No.11 R-299, packed on 08.03.2011) and a packet of Khattamishtha Chiwda (Rs.10, Batch No.11 R-291, packed on 16.03.2011) both of which claimed to include 75% extra quantity. The complainant discovered that the Rs.10 packets contained only 60 grams of goods instead of the promised 105 grams (60 grams plus 75% extra). This discrepancy demonstrated that the respondents had misled the complainant and other consumers by making false claims regarding the quantity of goods. This constituted an unfair trade practice and amounted to fraud. The complainant suffered financial loss, mental agony and inconvenience due to the O.P.’s deceptive practices. He sought action against the O.Ps. under the Consumer Protection Act and demanded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the mental and physical suffering caused.

4. After filing of the complaint, notice was issued to the O.P., the O.P. appeared and resisted the claim before the learned Additional District Forum by filing written version and contended that the objection raised regarding the weight of the Phalahari Chiwda and Khattameetha bags was baseless as the bags weighed 60 grams as indicated on the packaging and were correctly priced. They also contended that no false promise had been made as the packaging accurately disclosed the product’s weight and pricing. They claimed that the complainant’s assertion that a Rs.10/- packet should contain 105 grams of material based on proportional calculations was deemed incorrect, as it overlooked the differences in costs associated with smaller and larger packets. The Rs.5/- packet had a higher product-to-price ratio due to its smaller size, while the Rs.10/- packet incurred additional costs for its larger size, which justified the 60-gram weight. They further stated that an inspection conducted by the Weighing Officer found no discrepancies in the weight or other aspects