SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

Appeal No. 19612014

Filed on: 1'7.02.2014

Disposed on: 08.03'201 6

STATE coNSUMER DISPUTES

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA

MMISSION. BAN

ORE.

REDRESSAL CO

Pepsico India Hotding Pvt' Ltd'

Registered Offrce at

38; DLF Corporate Park, 'S'Block

Qutab Enclave, Phase III

Gurgaon l22OO2

Through authorized signatorY

(By Sri. Gerald Manoharan)

V/s

Rithu Jain

R/at B-504, AiswarYa ExcellencY

Opposite Tin Factory

K.R. Puram, Old Madra Roacl

Bangalore 5600 16

(ByIn-person)

oRDER

Mr. B.S. TADAHAL. JUDICIAL MDMBER

The appeiiant/OP No. 2 has preferred this appeal being

aggrieved by the order passed in CC' No' 834/2013 dated

31.10.2013 by the I Addl. Bangalore Urban District Consumer

Disputes Redressai Forum, Bangalore'

We sha1l refer to the parties as per the rankings before the

PRESENT

HON'BLE MTS' JUSTICE B.S. INDRAKALA : PRESIDENT

MT. B.S. TADAHAL

: JUDICIAL MDMBER

Mrs. G.T. VIJAYALAKSHMI

: MEMBER

Appeal No. t9612014

Appellant

......Respondent

District Forum.

Lo.-*r''-

DATED THIS THE OSthDAY OF MARCH 2016

2

Appeal No. 19612014

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

The respondent/ complainant filed this complaint praying to

pay compensation and to review the license of the manufacturing

Kolhapur unit in the interest of proper safety and health

standards.

The complainant purchased I kg. Lehar Shahi Mix bearing

batch No. ES 614 A dated OB.|L2O12 for Rs. 209/- from More

Mega Stores at Old Madras Road, Bangalore on 10.02.2013 at

5.10 p.m. In the house, the complainant after opening it saw one

or two broken pieces of cashewnuts and 5 - 10 pieces of raisins,

whereas packet mentions at Sok of Cashew and 2o/o raisins of

total mixture. Complainant's husband sent an e-mai1 to Op,s

customer care intimating the same arld kept the packet in air

tight container. Further he received reply from Simi Mehta that

they forward the complaint to Kolhapur Manufacturing unit. Op

acknowledged the complaint and after sending 2 e-mails they

called complainant's husband on his mobile and told that

packaging process is proper and neat and there is no chance of

less amount of cashews or raisins in the packet. On 17.02.2013

complainant went to Mega Stores and talked with Shivakumar,

Manager and intimated everything about the matter. On

08.03.2013 complainant decided to eat as it is and when she

Luu'r''o'..

2

Appeal No. 19612014

opened the packet and she filled remaining namkeen in piastic

container and she found cockroach in that namkeen'

Complainant contacted Manager of Mega Stores on 09'03'2013

and Manager himself acknowledged that fried item is cockroach'

Then the Manager sealed the packet with stapler and kept it with

himself and said that on 11'03'2013 he would call the Lehar

Namkeen Distributor and will intimate the sarne' The

complainant also sent 'e-mail to the customer care ID of Pepsico'

but, she did not receive any reply' Then the complainant's

husband took back the said sealed packet from More Mega Stores

on 11.03.2013. On 13'03'2013 one Mr' Sudarshan from Lehar

Distributor of Bangalore contacted complainant and told that

their superior authority Mr. Venkatarannana Mallya is in Chennai

and after his return he will attend to the problem '

On

16.03.20l3Mr.SudarshanandVenkataramanaMallyacameto

the apartment and saw fried cockroach in the packet and talked

about 3O mns. They requested the complainant to return the

packet in the exchange of new packet, but, complainant refused

to do so. They also contacted manager of Mega Stores and asked

for replacement of sealed packet, but, he also refused to do so'

The complainant and her husband are Jains and vegetarian in

-)

b"t u""^-o

Appeal No. 19612014

- nature. The presence of cockroach in namkeen has seriously

hurt their religious sentiment' Hence' the complaint'

4.oPNos.1&3remainedabsentandtheywereplaced

exparte.

5. OP No. 2 appeared before the forum and filed version

denying the allegations' There is no material that complainant

purchased any goods for consideration' There is no mention

about the presence of fried co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top