|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whenever
a consumer complains about the quality of a product, particularly packed food, one would expect the retailer and the manufacturer to take the complaint seriously, launch an investigation into the nature of the problem and the source of the problem and take appropriate measures such as withdrawing the entire batch, if necessary. Equally important, the consumer should be informed of the measures taken in response to the complaint, particularly to prevent recurrence of such problems. But manufacturers and retailers never do this. You complain to the retailer and he will always try to pass on the responsibility to the manufacturer, as if he is not accountable at all. The manufacturer, in turn, will try to blame the retailer- either he will say that the retailer did not store the product properly or the more common reaction is to disown the product and say that it is a spurious product. A recent order of the apex consumer court should force manufacturers and retailers to introspect over their attitude and change the way they respond to consumer complaints about quality. The order has its origin in the purchase of a bottle of cold drink, Fanta, by the complainant, Purushottam Gaur, in Indore on May 3, 2006 from Sanchi Point. According to the complainant, when he reached home, he noticed that there were some insects in the bottle. He complained to the retailer, who said that the quality was the responsibility of the manufacturer, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages. Eventually, Gaur filed a complaint against the retailer as well as the manufacturer before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, seeking a compensation of Rs 4 lakh. The manufacturer's response to the complaint was that the retailer who sold the cold drink was not their authorised dealer and the product was spurious and not manufactured by them. Their bottling plant maintained high standards of hygiene and quality control and there was so question of any insect entering the bottle. They also pointed out that there was no evidence to prove that the product was manufactured by them. While the District Forum dismissed the complaint, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commisison, before which the complainant appealed, directed the retailer and the manufacturer to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation and Rs 3,000 as costs.. This time the manufacturer appealed against this decision. The central question before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was whether the cold drink was manufactured and packed by the appellant or whether it was a spurious or an imitation product, as claimed by the manufacturer. So the Commission referred to the report of the laboratory to which the sample had been referred. The report had made three important observations. One, that the bottle did contain several insects . Two, in order to determine whether the sample was indeed packed by the manufacturer, the laboratory had procured a bottle of Fanta from the market and there were many differences between the two. However, unless the manufacturer provided a control sample from the same batch, it was not possible to say with certainty that it was indeed a spurious product. Three, the crimp cap was intact, but it is possible that it may have been opened and repacked with a new cap — the manufacturer may be able to shed more light on this, the report said. Referring to this, the Commission pointed out that the manufacturer had neither given the laboratory, a control sample norresponded to the questions posed by it. The manufacturer had not even investigated into the complaint to find out (from the retailer) who was duplicating their product, if indeed that was the case. Merely saying that the product was not manufactured by them was not enough; the manufacturer needed to prove it and had failed to do so, the Commission said, dismissing the appeal. (Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages pvt ltd vs Purushottam Gaur and another, RP no 1361 of 2014, decided on March 21, 2014, CPJ II 2014, page 580 NC ) This order should send out a clear signal to all manufacturers that hence forth they cannot take complaints about quality lightly. In fact, every manufacturer and retailer should have a written policy on responding to consumer complaints in a time-bound manner and they should stick to it.
|
||
|
|
||
rights