HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED vs Rakesh Kumar Chopra

THE District Forum, Jalandhar vide order dated 4.2.1998 allowed the complaint filed by Rakesh Kumar Chopra, directing the opposite party No. 1. (Hindustan Lever Limited) to pay Rs.

,000/ - AS damages for mental tension and harASsment caused to the complainant alongwith Rs. 1,000/ - AS costs. The aforesaid order hAS been challenged by the appellant, Hindustan Lever Limited in the present appeal. 2. The only question which arises in this cASe is of significant importance that relates to the weight of the commodity when packed, whether the alleged short weight is within the prescribed limits of standards of Weights and MeASures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Commodities (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 or not. Connected there with will be the question of unfair trade practice of selling under weight sealed packets. Rakesh Kumar Chopra bought a pack of 1 kg. Surf from Deep Store alongwith other provisions of household. On observation, he doubted the weight and quantity of the Surf and got it weighed from ''Jai Jagdambey Computer charam Kanda''. It wAS found that the weight of the Surf inclusive of packing wAS 963 gms. whereAS it wAS printed on the pack of the Surf, net weight 1 kg. ''when packed''. The complainant filed a complaint in the District Forum and claimed Rs. 75,000/ - AS compensation for the loss and mental agony. When served, the opposite party No. 1 remained absent and wAS proceed ''ex -parte. Opposite party No. 2, Deep Store admitted to have sold the packet in same conditions AS delivered to him by the agent of the opposite party No. 1. He denied for want of knowledge of the weight of the said pack wAS less so he wAS discharged of any liability and opposite party No. 1 being manufacturer wAS saddled with cost and compensation.

THE written version was filed by the appellant (Hindustan Lever Limited). It was categorically stated by learned Counsel Mr. Gurdeep Singh that the shortage, if any, is within the permissible limits of the Act and Rules of the ''Standards of Weights and Measures'' ''Surf detergent powder falls under the commodities, the weight and measures of which is likely to decrease within prescribed tolerance limits by reason of climatic variations. The relevant provisions as contained in ''The Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 are reproduced here : ''Rule 2(1)(i) ''maximum permissible error'', in relation to the quantity contained in an individual package, means an error in deficiency or excess which, subject to the provisions of these rules, does not exceed - (i) in relation to the commodities specified in the First Schedule, the limits of error specified in that Schedule; Relevant provisions of The First Schedule as appended to The Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 have been reproduced herein below : Sr. Description Quantity Maximum No. of Commodity Declared Permissible Error 4. Detergents (1) Upto and 5.0% cleaning/ equal to scouring 1 Kg powder and the like

DURING the course of arguments on 4.3.1999, the learned Counsel for appellant was unable to mention the correct weight of the empty pack of 1 kg. Surf so the appeal was adjourned to 7.4.1999 to enable the Counsel to state about the weight of the Same. On 7.4.1999, the Counsel for the petitioner submitted the computer weight slip of Verma Computer Weight. It was taken as evidence which mentioned that the empty pack of 1 kg. Surf weights 10 gms. -200 m. gms. The case of the complainant is that the weight of 1 kg. Surf packet sold to him was 963 gms. inclusive of packing material. According to the weight and measures rules Maximum permissible error is 5.0% in the quantity declared upto and equal to 1 kg. After deducting the weight of the empty packet of the Surf i.e. 10 gms. from 963 gms., the weight of the Surf pack sold to the complainant, remains within the maximum permissible error limit. It was not in any manner less than the prescribed limit. This brings us to the consideration that the complainant was not given less quantity of Surf so he did not Suffer any loss.

IN the peculiar facts and circumstances which have been discussed above, we are of the considered view that there was no room for the unfair trade practice. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the order of District Forum is set aside. Appeal allowed.