Selling sub-standard cake leaves baker with burnt fingers
Consumer commission awards Panchkula resident ₹20,000 compensation for cake worth ₹3,000 that left her son sick in July
Selling a substandard cake has drawn a hefty fine for a city-based bakery, with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, directing it to pay ₹40,000 as penalty.
The complainant, Anju Ahlawat, a Panchkula resident, filed a complaint against Nik Bakers, Sector 5, Panchkula, through its manager and M/s MG Bakers Private Limited, Chandigarh.
Ahlawat, a scientist at Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, had on June 29, 2019, ordered a cake for her son’s birthday.
Upon delivery, she found that the cake contained artificial colour. “As it was non-edible and unhygienic, the cake was not eaten by all guests,” she submitted in her complaint, adding that her son, who consumed the cake, started vomiting, experiencing pain and had loose motions. The doctor confirmed that the symptoms were caused by food poisoning.
The woman wrote several complaints to the bakery, but to no avail, following which she approached the consumer commission.
Nik Bakers stated that no laboratory report in support of the contentions of the complainant had been placed on record.
They submitted that their company was using premium quality ingredients, raw material and other ancillary material, which were food grade certified. They were following best food industry practices and use edible colours approved by “FSSAI” and that there was no question of using sub-standard food raw material or colours.
The commission, however, observed, “Since the complainant had booked the cake for her son’s birthday, who had fallen ill, it was her legitimate and valid expectation to have a clear and true report from Nik Bakers qua the alleged sub-standard and inferior quality of cake, but they had preferred not to send the sample of the same to any of its authorised laboratory.”
To the plea of the Nik Bakers that no other person, who was present on the occasion, had fallen ill except the complainant’s son, the commission observed that the plea was also not tenable as the cake allegedly was not consumed by the other persons.
It observed that Nik Bakers had been “found deficient, while selling the sub-standard and contaminated quality of the cake, to its consumer i.e. the complainant”.
It directed the bakery to refund the cost of the cake ( ₹3,186) to Ahlawat, along with interest at 9% per annum. Nik Bakers was further directed to pay ₹40,000 as compensation, of which ₹20,000 will go to the account of the Poor Patient Welfare Fund (PPWF) at PGIMER and ₹10,000 to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment. An additional ₹10,000 will be paid to cover the litigation costs borne by her.