Mumbai Consumer Commission Directs Britannia and Retailer to Pay ₹1.75 Lakh for Selling Contaminated Biscuits
Pranav B Prem
In a significant ruling aimed at protecting consumer rights, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai, comprising President Mr. Sadikali B. Sayyad and Member Smt. G. M. Kapse, has held Britannia Industries Ltd. and its authorised retailer, M/s Ashok M. Shah (a chemist shop at Churchgate Railway Station), jointly and severally liable for selling contaminated biscuits. The Commission directed them to pay a compensation of ₹1,50,000 for mental agony, physical discomfort, and harassment caused to the complainant, along with ₹25,000 as litigation costs.
The complainant, Ms. Inderpreet Kaur Dhillon, had purchased a packet of "Good Day" biscuits from the retailer, manufactured by Britannia. Upon consuming the biscuit, she found a live worm embedded in it. The experience resulted in nausea, vomiting, and considerable mental trauma. She immediately preserved the contaminated biscuit and submitted it for examination at the Municipal Food Laboratory of the BMC. The Food Analyst Report dated 29/08/2019 confirmed the presence of extraneous matter, declaring the biscuit sample unfit for human consumption.
Following this, the complainant served a legal notice to Britannia Industries on 04/02/2019 seeking redressal. However, no resolution was offered. This led her to file Consumer Complaint No. 112/2019 before the Commission under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, claiming ₹2.5 lakhs as compensation for physical and mental suffering and ₹50,000 towards litigation costs.
Defense and Submissions by Opposite Parties
Britannia Industries Ltd. denied all allegations and questioned the authenticity of the complaint. It argued that the complainant had not provided the biscuit wrapper or batch number, which was necessary to link the product to its manufacturing facility. The company maintained that its operations were certified under ISO and HACCP standards, ensuring the highest levels of food safety and quality. It also contended that the sampling procedure adopted by the complainant did not comply with Sections 46 to 49 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
M/s Ashok M. Shah, the retailer, also denied liability. The shop owner claimed that there was no evidence of sale—no receipt, wrapper, or batch code was produced by the complainant. It further contended that as a small-scale retailer dealing exclusively in sealed products from established manufacturers, it bore no responsibility for any contamination. It even questioned the Commission's jurisdiction and the locus standi of the complainant, arguing that she had not proven the actual transaction.
Key Issues and Commission’s Findings
The Commission framed six issues and answered all in favour of the complainant. Notably, it held that:
The complainant qualified as a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as she purchased the product for personal consumption.
The biscuit sold was defective and contaminated. The Food Analyst Report, which confirmed the presence of foreign matter, remained unchallenged by either opposite party. No counter-expert evidence was filed.
There was clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by both parties. The Commission emphasized that both the manufacturer and retailer failed to exercise the care expected of them under the law.
The contamination caused the complainant physical and mental distress, and the opposite parties were liable to compensate for the injury and expenses suffered.
The Commission made specific reference to Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, which defines "defect", and Sections 26 and 27 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which obligate food business operators to ensure food safety.
The Commission also cited authoritative rulings including:
Nagar Nigam, Bareilly v. Ajay Kumar (2008), where the Supreme Court held that Food Analyst Reports are presumed correct unless rebutted.
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Nitin Mittal, where contamination of food was deemed an unfair trade practice irrespective of fault.
Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia, to reinforce that consumer protection laws are beneficial legislations aimed at ensuring justice for aggrieved consumers.
Non-filing of Written Statement by Britannia
Importantly, Britannia Industries failed to file its written statement within the prescribed time limit despite being served with notice. On 17/09/2019, the Commission passed an order treating the company’s pleadings as non-existent and proceeded ex parte. This failure was taken as an implied admission of the complainant’s claims. The Commission invoked the principles analogous to Order 8 Rule 4 of the CPC to draw adverse inference against the manufacturer.
Final Order and Relief
Considering the facts, evidence, and the unchallenged food analyst report, the Commission held both Britannia and its retailer jointly and severally liable. It directed them to:
Pay ₹1,50,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment, and physical discomfort.
Pay ₹25,000 as litigation costs.
The total amount was to be paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which it would carry interest at 9% per annum until realization.
Appearance
For Complainant: Adv Pankaj Kandhari
For Opposite Party No.1 (Britannia): Adv R.D Khare
For Opposite Party No.2 (Shop): Adv A.M Sayyad
Cause Title: Ms. Inderpreet Kaur Dhillon V. Britannia Industries Ltd. & Anr.
Case No: Consumer Complaint No: 112/2019
Coram: Smt. G.M. Kapse [Member], Mr. Sadikali B. Sayyad [President]
