Six years after a Bengaluru man approached a consumer court - seeking ₹50 lakh as compensation after finding worms in a chocolate bar purchased from a local store - he has been directed to the state consumer forum. The court said the relief sought was beyond its remit.
In October 2016, Mukesh Kumar Kedia, a resident of Bengaluru's HSR Layout, bought two bars of chocolate - Cadbury's Fruit and Nut - for his niece for ₹89. A few days later, when one bar was opened, he found it infested with worms.
Kedia first registered a complaint with Cadbury's helpline. Cadbury requested him to bring in the bar with worms but he refused and sent a picture.
On receiving no further communication he filed a complaint with the Bengaluru (urban) district consumer disputes redressal commission in Shanti Nagar on October 26, 2016.
Kedia also lodged a complaint against the manufacturer of Cadbury's chocolates in India - Mondelez India Foods Private Limited, and the shop - MK Retail Supermarket's HSR Layout branch - from which he bought the chocolate. He filed a 'service deficiency' complaint against the head of the quality department of Mondelez India Foods.
During the lawsuit, advocates representing Mondelez reportedly said that the petitioner was merely looking to benefit monetarily through the case and therefore made the demand for ₹20 lakh to ₹50 lakhs for a bar of chocolate that cost him ₹89.
{{/usCountry}}During the lawsuit, advocates representing Mondelez reportedly said that the petitioner was merely looking to benefit monetarily through the case and therefore made the demand for ₹20 lakh to ₹50 lakhs for a bar of chocolate that cost him ₹89.
{{/usCountry}}The court acknowledged the chocolate had worms in it but said it was unable to try the case as the monetary value in question was beyond its jurisdiction.
The case was filed under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 which only permits hearing of pleas up to ₹5 lakh. The revised 2019 act allows consumer courts to hear cases up to ₹1 crore but the case was filed before the law was revised.
After more than five years of court battle, the city consumer court gave out a verdict on April 8 this year and ordered that it has no ‘pecuniary jurisdiction’ to hear the 2016 complaint. The court further directed Kedia to take the case further at the state consumer court.