H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHIMLA.

First Appeal No.: SC/2/FA/3/2025 Date of Presentation : 30.01.2025 Order Reserved on : 03.09.2025 Date of Order : 16.09.2025 _____

1. Nestle India Limited, Nestle House, Jacaranda Marg,N block DLF City, Phase 2,National Highway-8, Gurgaon-

122002, (Haryana).

2. Nestle India Limited, Village and P.O Nangal Kalan, Industrial Area,Tahliwal,Tehsil-Haroli Una, District Una (H.P)

Una (H.P)-174301.

(Both through its duly authorized signatory Syed Nadeem Ahmad son of Syed Shamim Ahmed, Senior Sales Manager, resident of B-301, Plot No. 10 Shree Krishna Apartment Sector 5, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.

..…Appellants/ Opposite Parties Versus Shri Piyush Awasthi son of Sh.Anil Awasthi, resident of Village &

post office Thandol, Tehsil- Palampur, District Kangra (HP)-

176087.

……Respondent/ Complainant Coram Hon’ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President Hon’ble Ms.Yogita Dutta, Member

1 Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior counsel with Mr. Ajeet Jaswal, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Piyush Awasthi, respondent in person.

Per Ms. Yogita Dutta, Member O R D E R Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order

04.01.2025, passed by Learned District Consum er Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala in Consumer Complaint No.291/2023 titled Piyush Awasthi Versus Nestle India Ltd. & Ors., whereby the complaint was allowed and opposite parties were jointly & severally directed to refund an amount of Rs.14/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. Apart from this, opposite parties were jointly & severally directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/, besides litigation cost quantified as Rs.10,000/-.The opposite parties were jointly & severally also directed to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- in District Consumer Legal Aid Fund before the Commission.

Brief facts of Case:-

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this complaint are that complainant's father being an Ex-Air force bought 6 packets of Maggi along with other grocery items from CSD canteen Holta Camp Palampur on 09.07.2023. It is pleaded that complainant on 25.08.2023opened two packets of Maggi and discovered live worms inside one of the packet. The packet of Maggi Noodles has an expiry date of January, 2024 and the batch number is 31419939DA. On complainant's email Nestle India responded through mail and assured the complainant that they will reques t a representative to contact complainant and personally look into the matter. On same date, a girl named Charu Bajaj from Nestle India contacted the complainant through phone to resolve the matter and look into the quality check of same batch 2 minutes Maggi noodles and also as a goodwill gesture promised to send a goody box of Maggi from Nestle India. After lapse of two months, Nestle India hadn't taken any action or replied/contacted back to complainant with any response. Alleging deficiency in the service on the part of opposite party(s), the complainant has filed the present complaint.

3. The complaint of complainant has been resisted and contested by opposite parties through counsel by taking preliminary objection of maintainability. It is submitted that no valid invoice or cash memo of the Answering opposite Party was placed on record and as such the allegations made are baseless & without substantiating the same. The allegations made in the complaint are based on surmises and conjectures without establishing any privity of contract between the complainant and the Opposite Parties. It is a settled position of law that if the factum of purchase is not established, the complaint is ought to be dismissed. In order to satisfy the requirements of the definit ion of Consumer under the said Act, there must have been a transaction of buying goods for a valid consideration. The complainant has failed to prove so by way of a va