New Delhi Sept 10(ILNS): The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea filed by a woman seeking compensation of Rs 20 lakh from Amul and Food Safety Standard Authority of India (FSSAI), alleging she became severely ill after consuming “Amul Chhach” which had contained a rotten piece of chicken and has been facing severe psychological distress ever since.
A single-judge bench comprised of Justice Rekha Palli has noticed that the relief sought for in the present petition would be in the nature of a consumer dispute and therefore, the petitioner ought to approach the appropriate authorities under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. “Even otherwise, nothing has been placed on record to show that the product consumed by the petitioner was in fact defective, as claimed by her,” said Justice Palli.
In a petition, filed by Sonia Rana Dua, she stated that “she had purchased a tetra pack of Amul Chhach from Jio Mart on October 26, 2020, which was delivered on her on October 27, 2020. However, when on November 14, 2020, she consumed a portion of the drink from the said pack, she became severely ill as according to her the said pack Contained a rotten piece of chicken. Consequently, the petitioner has not only been suffering from vomiting and diarrhoea from the said date on a daily basis, but has also been facing severe psychological distress ever since and has been obtaining medical treatment for the same.”
The Counsel for the petitioner submitted before the Delhi High Court that, “she immediately sent a complaint to respondent nos.3, 4 & 5 but, except for the representative of respondent no.4 who visited the petitioner’s residence to take a sample of the product in question, no action was taken by any of the other respondents. Even the results of the lab test conducted by respondent no.4 have not been informed to petitioner till date.”
Further, he submitted, “that as the respondent no.3 which is responsible for monitoring safety standards of domestically produced goods, failed to respond to the said complaint, the petitioner was compelled to send a reminder to respondent no.3 on August 4, 2021, which has also remained unanswered.”
The Court has noted that disputed question of fact cannot be decided in a writ petition but has to be adjudicated by respondent no.3. “The present petition is, therefore, dismissed with a direction to respondent no.3 to respond to the petitioner’s complaint dated August 4, 2021, within four weeks from today. The said response be communicated to the petitioner. It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the present petition will not bar the petitioner from approaching the Consumer Court, in case, she so desires,” said the Court in its order. /ILNS/KR/SNG