Pieces Of Rubber Gloves Found In Packed Food Item, New Delhi District Commission Holds Food Hall At Chanakya Mall Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi bench comprising Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President), Dr Rajender Dhar (Member) and Ritu Garodia (Member) held Food Hall, Chanakya Mall liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for negligently leaving pieces of a white-coloured glove in a packed food item. Further, the Food Hall management failed...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi bench comprising Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President), Dr Rajender Dhar (Member) and Ritu Garodia (Member) held Food Hall, Chanakya Mall liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for negligently leaving pieces of a white-coloured glove in a packed food item. Further, the Food Hall management failed to address the grievance or extend an apology to the Complainant.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant placed an order for a food item, specifically Roasted Garlic and Parsley Cheese spread from the Food Hall at Chanakya Mall. Upon opening the container, the Complainant discovered pieces of white-coloured rubber gloves amidst the food item. The Complainant immediately communicated with the Food Hall via email and received an acknowledgement but didn't receive any resolution. Subsequently, the Complainant made several efforts including a telephone call and a visit to the Food Hall. The individuals at the Food Hall denied any involvement in dispatching defective or non-consumable food items.
Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the Food Hall. The Food Hall didn't appear before the District Commission for the proceedings.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that the photographic evidence depicted the presence of rubber glove fragments within a tin labelled "roasted garlic and parsley." Further, the District Commission noted that as a reputed retail service, the Food Hall failed to address the complaint or extend an apology for the apparent negligence in selling contaminated food products.
The District Commission held that the actions of Food Hall constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act. Reliance was placed on M.K. Malhotra Vs. Asianlak Health Foods Ltd. and Ors. [II (2010) CPJ277 (UT Chd.)], where it was held that the responsibility of a manufacturer doesn't end with the mere production of goods. Rather, it extends to ensuring that consumers receive products of impeccable quality. It held that when consumers purchase consumable goods, they inherently trust that these products are safe and meet certain standards. Any failure on the part of the manufacturer to deliver goods of satisfactory quality not only breaches this trust but also exposes consumers to potential harm.
Therefore, the District Commission held the Food Hall liable for deficiency in services for selling contaminated food products. The District Commission directed the Food Hall to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with 50% to be paid to the Complainant and the remaining 50% to be deposited with the Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, within 30 days from the date of this order.
Case Title: Renuka Khanna vs Food Hall @ Chanakya Mall