'Will Open Pandora Box, Approach Consumer Court': Delhi High Court Disposes Plea Alleging Dead Rat In Amul Buttermilk Packet

The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to entertain a woman's plea alleging that a dead rat or rotten chicken flesh was found in Amul's buttermilk Packet, thereby affecting her mental and physical well being post it's consumption. The petitioner had sought a compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs.

Asking the petitioner to approach the consumer court, Justice Rekha Palli opined that allowing such petition will open a "pandora box" for others who will approach the High Court instead of consumer forums.

However the Court directed the Food Safety Standards of India to decide the complaint of the woman in a time bound manner, within four weeks.

Advocate Shadab Husain Khan appearing for the petitioner submitted that the woman was undergoing a psychiatric treatment and that the purpose of approaching the High Court was that the lady's fundamental right under Art.21 was infringed.

"FSSAI is legally bound to take the sample. However, it's not done in this case. They have not done their duty. Consumer courts cannot entertain cases of violation of fundamental rights," Khan submitted.

On this, the Court asked petitioner counsel as to the proof showing that a rat was found in the buttermilk Packet.

"Show me a document and then I can consider. I cannot decide a disputed question like this," said Justice Palli.

On the other hand, Advocate Rakesh Chaudhary appearing for FSSAI submitted before the Court that there was an equally efficacious remedy available with the petitioner.

"They want a compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs whereas under the FSSAI Act, it says in case of hurt, only one lakh compensation can be given," Chaudhary submitted.

To this, Khan said that the High Court has powers for deciding compensation under Art. 226.

"In my view, since there is nothing prima facie to show that the product was defective, the case cannot be decided on disputed question of fact. The present petition is therefore rejected," the Court said.

It added:

"However respondent 3 (FSSAI) is directed to respond to the petitioner's complaint dated August 4,2021 in a time bound manner within four weeks from today. It is made clear that the dismissal of the petition will not bar the petitioner from approaching the consumer court."

Case Title: SONIA RANI DUA v. FSSAI & Ors.