South-West Delhi Commission Holds Haldiram Liable For Sale Of Stale Sweets And Failure To Replace All Items
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi bench comprising Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), R.C. Yadav (Member) and Dr. Harshali Kaur (Member) held Haldiram Product Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Haldiram engaged in the selling of stale sweets infected with fungus. It also failed to resolve the consumer's grievances...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi bench comprising Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), R.C. Yadav (Member) and Dr. Harshali Kaur (Member) held Haldiram Product Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Haldiram engaged in the selling of stale sweets infected with fungus. It also failed to resolve the consumer's grievances by replacing only 3 bags of sweets among many.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant purchased sweets from Haldiram Product Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 10,520/- during Diwali. After distributing the sweets to his friends, it was discovered that the sweets were contaminated with fungus and were unfit for consumption. Upon learning this, the Complainant promptly retrieved the sweets from his friends and notified Haldiram of the issue. However, Haldiram's response was limited to offering replacements for only three bags of sweets. Subsequently, the Complainant sought assistance from law enforcement, lodging a complaint via the emergency number 100. Despite the assurance that the sweets would undergo laboratory examination, no action was taken by the police. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Haldiram. Haldiram didn't appear before the District Commission for the proceedings.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that the Complainant promptly notified Haldiram of the issue, but the response on the part of Haldiram was inadequate, which offered a replacement for only three bags of sweets. The case of the Complainant was found to be factually and legally coherent. Given that the Complainant paid consideration for the purchase of the sweets, which were ultimately deemed unfit for consumption, the District Commission held that Haldiram failed in its obligation to provide satisfactory goods. Therefore, the District Commission held Haldiram liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
Consequently, the District Commission directed Haldiram to refund the sum of Rs. 10,520/- to the Complainant along with interest at a rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit. Additionally, the District Commission directed Haldiram to pay a lump sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for mental agony.