Nathu's Sweets Pays 1 Lakh to a Disgruntled Customer

Nathu Sweets is a chain of stores that sells sweets, bakeries and namkeens. A consumer forum in Delhi has asked Nathu's Sweets to pay around Rs. 1 lakh to a south Delhi resident for supplying inferior quality  'ladoos' which were unsafe for human consumption. The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by C K Chaturvedi, asked the sweets' firm to pay Rs 95,920 to Monika K Sapra. "We hold OP (firm) guilty of deficiency in supplying
inferior quality of ladoos which were rancid and not safe for human use," the forum said. "We direct OP to return Rs 25,920 price of ladoos... pay Rs 50,000 for deficiency, embarrassment and loss of reputation faced before invitees and hurting her sentiments... pay Rs. 20,000 as litigation expenses," it said. According to Sapra, she had ordered 80 packets of 'Ladoo' from the firm's shop for September 22, 2012, by paying Rs. 25,920 which was to be used in a birthday party. However, the sweet items which were delivered, were foul smelling and had bitter taste and, thereafter, she approached the firm, she said. On getting no response from firm, she independently submitted a packet of packed ladoos to laboratory and obtained report, which showed rancidity and not safe for use, she said. She said she had served legal notice demanding return of money, compensation for loss of reputation and embarrassment and litigation etc, which was rejected and, thereafter, she approached the forum. The forum also noted that the firm had avoided mediation opportunity to settle the matter and rather filed a fresh report of Food Laboratory Delhi Government on a sample of fresh ladoos from its shop. "The OP has tried to take unfair advantage by sending a fresh ladoo to Department (Food Laboratory), rather than agreeing to the poor quality supply, and solving the matter," it said. The forum added that the firm had indulged in unfair practices by first not agreeing to report of laboratory obtained by Sapra and further avoided mediation opportunity which forced the complainant to approach it. It said that the firm had got another report to serve its interest before it. In its order, the forum rejected the fresh report of Food Department, obtained by the firm.