Britannia fined Rs 60 thousand
The case was heard by a bench of Chairman C T Sabu and members Sreeja S and Ram Mohan R. The weight of the biscuit packet was significantly less than the declared quantity written on the packet and this information was given to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The matter was heard by a bench comprising president C T Sabu and members Sreeja S and Ram Mohan R. It was observed that there was a significant shortage in the weight of the biscuit packets in comparison with the declared quantity written on the packets, Bar and Bench reported.
“It is axiomatic that there is a drastic shortage in the net weight of the biscuit in MO1 package, to be more specific in terms of quantity, the shortage in net weight is more than 52g (300-248) in MO1 package,” it stated in the order.
who claimed?
A complaint in this regard was filed by a person named George Thattil, who claimed that he purchased two packets of Britannia’s “Nutri Choice Thin Arrow Root Biscuits” for ₹40 each from a bakery.
He bought them with the belief that the two packets weighed 300 grams each as it was printed by the manufacturer over the packaging. However, he later claimed that the packets weighed 268 grams and 248 grams respectively.
Thattil filed a complaint in this matter with the Assistant Controller with Flying Squad of Legal Metrology, Thrissur. Later on, it verified his claim and confirmed the shortage in weight, the report said.
After that, Thattil approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Thrissur (District Commission) and a consumer complaint was filed. He sought a direction to restrict the opposite parties from adopting such illegal practices, claiming compensation for the financial, physical and mental loss sustained by him.
While hearing the matter, the Commission noted that Britannia and the bakery (opposite parties) failed to file their written statements before the District Commission even after being served notices.
“Such a deceptive act from the part of an erring manufacturer or trader is tantamount to jeopardizing the very dignity of the consumer and his right to live a life free from exploitation or deception or any kind of unfair trade practice,” the consumer forum noted.
The acts of both the seller as well as the manufacturer amounted to unfair trade practice, it said, adding that it was in violation of the Consumer Protection Act along with Section 30 of the Legal Metrology Act 2009.
In its order, the Commission asked the opposite parties to pay a total sum of ₹50,000 towards compensation for the complainant’s loss, besides ₹10,000 towards litigation costs borne by him.
check out Market Coverage & get real-time Stock Market
Nice 👍🏻