Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1213
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, Bimla Kumari, Member
M/S DEVYANI FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD – Appellant
Versus
MS. ANUSHKA ARORA – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 264/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mukesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Vaibhav Negi, Niraj Kumar
A person is considered a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act even without a purchase invoice for small-value items, and the manufacturer is primarily liable for manufacturing defects regardless of whether the retailer is impleaded.
Headnote:Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a complaint was filed alleging that a foreign substance, specifically a wooden stick, was found inside an ice cream brick manufactured by the opposite party. The complainant sought compensation for mental agony and a refund of the purchase price. The District Commission found the manufacturer guilty of deficiency in service, ruling that the absence of a purchase invoice for a small amount does not disqualify a person from being a 'consumer'. The primary issues were whether the respondent qualifies as a 'consumer' without an invoice and whether the manufacturer is liable for defects without the retailer being impleaded. The court reasoned that for small purchases, a bill is not mandatory to establish consumer status and that the liability for manufacturing defects rests with the manufacturer, as the retailer is not responsible for internal contamination in automated packaging. Consequently, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. presence of foreign substances in edible products constitutes a deficiency in service. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dispute over the necessity of a purchase invoice and impleadment of retailers in consumer complaints. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. invoice is not mandatory to prove consumer status for small-value purchases. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. manufacturer is liable for quality defects regardless of the retailer's involvement. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. upholding the lower court's decision on deficiency in service and dismissing the appeal. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
Present: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, counsel for the Appellant.
Ms. Riya Goyal, proxy counsel for the Respondent.
PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per District Commission record are as under:
“1. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Cream Bell ice cream brick on 26.05.2017 manufactured by the OP from a shop, namely Popular General Store, located in Badarpur. She alleges that while consuming the ice cream, she found a foreign substance inside the ice cream, which was a piece of wooden stick. Exhibit No. 1 is the picture of the wooden stick the complainant found in the ice cream annexed by the complainant, along with her complaint.
2. The complainant noticed the letters’ CRE’ on the stick, which she assumed was a part of another cream bell stick ice cream. She has annexed the picture of the cleaned wooden stick as Exhibit No.2. She immediately lodged a consumer complaint online on 26.05.2017 on the portal of the Consumer Fora (Exhibit No.3). She also sent an email to the OP customer care detailing the incident on the same day (Exhibit No.-4). She also exposed the incident via a Facebook post on her social media channels (Exhibit No. 5).
3. Despite several efforts to reach the OP and lodge her complaint, she was unable to get her grievance resolved. She, therefore, reported the matter to FSSAI and wrote an email to the Department of Food Safety (DFS) on 18.07.2017 and the Regulatory Compliance Division (RCD) FSSAI via email on 10.03.2018. On 26.10.2018, she wrote an email to the Food Officer of the concerned district (Exhibit No.7). When she did not receive any concrete response from the regulatory departments mentioned above or the OP, she sent a legal notice to the OP dated 10.12.2018 (Exhibit No.-8) to no avail.
4. Aggrieved, the complainant filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service and praying for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical discomfort, Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost and refund of Rs. 115/- with interest of 8% from 26.05.2017 till date which was the amount paid by her for the ice cream brick.
5. On notice, the OP filed their reply stating that, undoubtedly, the OP manufactures ice cream, ice candy and frozen desserts under the name and style of Cream Bell. It is the most reputed brand name in the market, and due care is taken in manufacturing and packaging its product using modern, sophisticated automatic machines involving strict quality checks at various stages of manufacturing and packing. The OP states that the OP company’s plants are ISO 9001:2008 and ISO 22000:2005 certified facilities, and they have adopted stringent quality measures of international standards, taking all diligence and care to ensure high-quality products for their consumers.
6. The OP has taken the preliminary objections that the instant case is false, frivolous and malafide in nature with contradictory allegations as the complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2 (d) of the Act since she has neither filed a bill/invoice to evidence the purchase of the alleged ice cream nor has she placed on record any information such as batch no, manufacturing date etc. to establish that the alleged product i.e. "Chocolate Chip Brick Ice Cream" was manufactured and sold by the OP. She
