Mere Allegations Of Finding Dead Spider In Food Product Are Not Enough, Chandigarh District Commission Dismisses Complaint

Brief Facts:

Manreet Gill (“Complainant”) approached Jagat Singh & Sons Agencies Retail (“Retailer”) on 09.06.2020 for purchasing various food items, including Sundrop Popz Chocolatey Crunch 350 GM, supplied by Agro Tech Foods Ltd. (“Supplier”). Upon opening the pack at home, she discovered a dead spider and found the cereal contents crushed, indicating substandard quality. A later purchase on 31.08.2020 from the same Supplier resulted in finding a human hair and leaks in the packaging. Subsequently, the Complainant filed a complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”).

The Supplier countered by stating that the product was acquired by a commercial entity 'Reet Caterers,' according to the invoices. This categorization rendered the Complainant ineligible as a consumer. They refuted the dead spider claim and highlighted their stringent quality control protocols. On the other hand, Rukkveer Food Products Pvt. Ltd. (“Manufacturer”) rejected the possibility of foreign objects within the packaging, attributing it to their rigorous quality checks during production. They disputed the Complainant’s claims due to the absence of substantial proof.

The retailer confirmed receipt from the manufacturer and argued that the case wasn't their responsibility. They emphasized the lack of allegations regarding service deficiency.

Decision of the Commission:

The District Commission noted a conspicuous absence of substantial evidence that could substantiate the Complainant’s claims. Despite the gravity of the allegations, there was a lack of expert opinions or tangible proof that could corroborate her assertions regarding the existence of foreign objects within the product and the overall compromised quality.

Furthermore, the District Commission observed an intriguing inconsistency in the Complainant’s actions. While she initially accepted a gesture of goodwill in the form of a gift hamper from the manufacturer, she subsequently reversed her stance by declining the hamper without offering explicit reasons. This inconsistency in her response raised questions about the reliability and uniformity of her objections. The District Commission underscored the critical role that credible evidence plays in bolstering claims. The Complainant’s inability to furnish expert opinions or professionally captured evidence, such as photographs, diminished the potency of her allegations.

Based on these considerations, the District Commission found insufficient grounds to support the Complainant's claims of foreign objects and compromised quality. The absence of substantial evidence and inconsistencies in response led the District Commission to conclude that the complainant's case lacked the necessary merit. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed. The parties were left to bear their respective costs.

Case: Manreet Gill vs Agro Tech Foods Ltd.

Case No.: CC/461/2020

Advocate for the Complainant: Sh. Deepak Goyal, Counsel for Complainant

Advocate for the Respondent: Sh. Arjun Kundra, Counsel for OP No.3.

Click Here To Read/Download Order