TAPASINI SINHA vs IMPERIAL MATCH WORKS

THE complainant in this case has prayed for redressal alleging deficiency in the goods purchased by her. It is alleged by her that she purchased Safety Match Boxes for domestic use on 5.8.94. She purchased three packets each packet containing ten nos. of match boxes from a betel shop under the name and style of " Annapurna Betel Shop" at Bajrakabati Road, Cuttack-1. Out of the three packets of safety matches which she purchased, one packet containing ten match boxes purports to have been manufactured by opposite party No.. 1 "THE Imperial Match Works" having a picture of camel thereon and the other two packets containing ten match boxes in each are purported to have been manufactured by opposite party No. 2 M/s. Thuyagaraja Match Industries under the trade name "Twenty Seven Deluxe". Being a vigilant consumer she developed a curiosity to know as to whether the match boxes declaring that it contains fifty match sticks, did really contain the same number of sticks. On counting the sticks in the match boxes, she found that the number of sticks existing in the match boxes was less than fifty. In the Camel Brand matchboxes, the number of sticks varied from 46 to 52. In the entire packet of ten match boxes, the total number of sticks was found to be 489. In the Twenty Seven Deluxe Brand Match Boxes in one packet the number of sticks varied from 40 to 48, the total number of sticks in the said packet containing ten match boxes, became 447. In the other Twenty Seven Deluxe brand match packet containing ten match boxes, the number of sticks in the entire packet became 373. It has also been alleged in the complaint petition referring to the particular match boxes which she had purchased that some of the match boxes did not contain ''head'' which gets ignited on friction with the side walls. Each of the match boxes contained a label of the Central Excise authorities. THE complainant has described the sale of such match boxes as Unfair Trade Practice and has indicated in the complaint petition as to how the manufacturer of these match boxes is being profited by supplying less number of match sticks in each packet. According to the complainant in view of the huge sale of such match boxes in the Indian market, the profit of the manufacturer will be enormous if one or two match sticks are less than the required number in each match box. She has prayed for compensation and for refund of the excess price taken from her and for issue of necessary directions to stop the unfair trade practice.

THE Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 are the two other match box manufacturing industries but there is no allegation against them that any match box manufactured by them was purchased by the complainant or any defect in the goods was found by her. Opposite Party No. 5, the Union of India represented by the Ministry of Finance (Central Excise and Customs) and Opposite Party Nos. 6 and 7 are the Board of Excise and Customs and Collector of Central Excise and Customs respectively. Opposite Party No. 8 is the shop owner from whom the complainant had purchased the match box, but no notice could be served on Opposite Party No. 8 as such betel shop is non-existent by the time the notice was sent. At the request of the complainant, Opposite Party No. 8 was deleted from the cause title. It is Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 and 3 who filed separate show causes in this case. Opposite Party No. 4 is represented by Counsel and it has filed a show cause. There being no allegation made against Opposite Party No. 4 in the complaint petition, no relief is available to be granted against the said industry. Similar is the position with respect to Opposite Party No. 3 whose match boxes had not been purchased by the complainant. Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 their separate show causes have denied their liability disputing all the allegations made in the complaint petition. They have taken a technical objection that since the match boxes had been purchased by the complainant not for her use but for the purpose of verifying as to whether it contained requisite number of match sticks, she cannot be called a consumer within the meaning of the Act. They have denied the allegations that each match box contained less than 50 sticks. According to these two opposite parties, the process of manufacturing match boxes is such that there can be no scope of any error in putting the required number of sticks in a match box. They have also alleged that since the Central Excise Duty has been paid for the quantity of match sticks in each match box, the allegation that it contained less sticks is not acceptable. They have alleged that the allegations against the opposite parties are without any basis and cannot be accepted.

They have described the process of manufacture which according to them is by manual process. They have described that match sticks are placed in a lathe and 52 lathes made of wood are fixed in a wooden frame. Each lathe contains 52 grooves and can accommodate one stick only. So there can be no error of bringing out the sticks from the lathe. They have further alleged that the number of match sticks put in such process in the match boxes cannot be said to be less and it has been emphatically asserted that there can be no shortage of sticks in the match boxes as alleged and there is no intention on the part of the opposite parties to deceive the purchaser of match boxes with less number of sticks in each match box. Though allegations have been made in the complaint petition that some match boxes usually contained sticks without any head for ignition or broken sticks, they do not make any such specific allegation in respect of the match boxes purchased by her. The only complaint that has been made is that the match boxes contained less number of sticks than the declared quantity on the cover of it. The learned Counsel appearing for Opposite Parties 1 and 2 invited our attention to the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. In the said Schedule the item "Safety match boxes" has been described on the First Schedule thereof in S1. 11. The said schedule gives the maximum permissible error in the sticks specified therein. So far as Safety Match-boxes are concerned, the provision is that 8 per cent is the maximum permissible error in a match box containing up to 50 sticks. If the match box purports to contain 50 sticks, then the permissible error would be 4 sticks in the maximum. We are not concerned with the latter permissible error in the match boxes in question in which purport to contain 50 match sticks. The permissible error being 8.0 per cent, a matchbox containing less than 46 match sticks is beyond the permissible error. It is, however, submitted on behalf of the opposite parties that the maximum permissible error described in the First Schedule of the aforesaid Rules is for other purposes, namely, for the purposes of prosecution of a dealer for violation of the aforesaid rules and not for the purposes of Consumer Protection Act. According to them if a consumer gets less goods than what it is declared in the packets, he does not become entitled to redressal. Taking into consideration the fact that the aforesaid Rules permit a maximum permissible error, we are of the view that a customer while purchasing the goods will also be governed by the error permissible in law. In other words, if the goods purchased by a consumer conforms to the requirement of the standard weight and measurement as given in the said Rules, it cannot be said to be less in quantity within the meaning of "unfair trade practice" as defined in Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act. Taking into consideration the maximum permissible error, we find that none of the Camel Brand match boxes purchased by the complainant contained less than 46 match sticks as stated earlier. So far as Twenty Seven Deluxe match boxes are concerned, in one packet, there were three match boxes which contained less than 46 match sticks and in the other there were two in which there were less than 46 match sticks. Two match boxes of Twenty Seven Deluxe Brand matchbox with the seal of the Central Excise on it were produced before us which were not previously opened. The same was opened by the Commission. Out of two match boxes, one contained 48 match sticks and the other 38 match sticks. The learned Counsel appearing for Opposite Parties 1 and 2 raised some objections saying that the possibility of taking out match sticks from the said two match boxes without tampering with the paper seal cannot be ruled out. The Commission, therefore, purchased another match box of the same brand from one of the nearby shops and the match sticks contained in it were counted in open Court. It was found that the said matchbox contained 41 match sticks. The complainant has produced all the three match boxes which she had purchased and as per the complaint petition she had counted the same. Unless we disbelieve her statement to be outright false for which we do not find any material on record, it must be accepted what the complainant says is true. It rather stands corroborated by counting the match sticks in three match boxes of Twenty Seven Deluxe Brand in open Court. We are, therefore, led to believe that the Twenty Seven Deluxe Brand match boxes are not free from error in counting the match sticks while putting the same in the boxes. Some of the match boxes contained less than maximum errors as specified in the aforesaid Schedule. This would amount to unfair trade practice within the meaning of the phrase as given in the Act. We would, therefore, direct the Opposite Party No. 2, manufacturer of Twenty Seven Deluxe Brand Match boxes not to repeat the practice of selling match boxes containing more than the maximum permissible error. We, however, make it clear that the permissible error specified in the Standards and Weights (Packaged Commodities) Rules referred to above speaks of errors inadvertently committed. It does not give a licence to the manufacturer or seller of goods to give less quantity of goods than what it declares.

SINCE the 27 Deluxe brand match boxes purchased by the complainant contained less number of sticks even less than the tolerance limit, we would award a compensation of Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred) only to be paid by Opposite Party No. 2 to the complainant. The Opposite Party No. 2 shall also pay a cost of Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred) only towards litigation expenses to the complainant. The aforesaid amounts of compensation and cost shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of default till the date of payment. Complaint allowed with costs.