Krinshan Kumar Bajaj Vs Pepsico

PepsiCo fined for selling ‘underweight’ packet of Lay’s chips.

1.Introduction
Consumer Protection Act,1986 - In order to provide for better protection of the interests of the
consumer the Consumer Protection Bill, .1986 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 5th
December, 1986.The Consumer Protection Act 1986 is a social welfare legislation which was
enacted as a result of widespread consumer protection movement.
The main objective of CPA is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes. It is
one of the benevolent pieces of legislation intended to protect the consumers at large from
exploitation.

2.Summary
Krishnan Kumar Bajaj, a resident of Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, bought a Rs.10 packet from a store
in the Thaltej region on June 28, 2010, and noticed it was underweighted right away. When he
weighed the load, his suspicions were verified. The pack was manufactured on April 19, 2010.
He wrote to the manufacturer twice. While the first letter received no answer, the corporation
acknowledged that the packet was underweight but did not take the complaint seriously in
response to the record. It offered Bajaj a PepsiCo gift basket, which he declined.
Company refused to accept their fault and gave several unsatisfactory clarifications. Bajaj
complained to Ahmedabad-based Consumer Education & Research Society (CERS) about the
"Lay's - Shipra Tangy Twist" potato chips packet he purchased being underweight. When the
weight was tested, the sealed package weighed just 8gm instead of the 30gm stated on the
packet, a stunning 72 percent less. CERS took the issue to the Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, which also gave a favorable ruling. The company asked for the bill of purchase which
Bajaj could not produce

3.Issue Raised
According to CERS, while just one packet was discovered to be underweight by an observant
consumer, a simple calculation shows that if the whole output of 36,700 packets under the batch
listed on the package is sold underweight, the firm may earn an extra profit of Rs2.75 lakh.
Several inadequate clarifications were provided by the Pepsico. It said that owing to
technological glitches, packages may be underweighted at the start and conclusion of the packing
process. It said that such shipments are "segregated in a separate hold area and burned." Further
inquiry by CERS yielded unexpected results: Simi Mehta, a PepsiCo spokesperson, revealed that
the business had received complaints concerning underweight packages from its Pune facility.
As a result, this was not a unique incidence. CERS has caused us to assume that the selling of
underweight packages to customers was not an isolated incidence. This might occur with their
various products in several batches from distinct PepsiCo factories. Even if such an
incident/technical problem occurs at PepsiCo on a particular day, it has far-reaching
consequences for the firm and its customers.

4.Decision
CERS eventually filed a complaint with the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, citing unfair
trading practices. The panel also issued a favorable verdict, rejecting all of PepsiCo's objections.
At PepsiCo's request, the Forum had the pack weighed at a government laboratory, and the lab's
findings confirmed that the pack weighed 8.42gms. The corporation contended that the case
should be dismissed because Bajaj could not present the purchase bill. Consumers may not have
a bill for an Rs10 good very often. To resolve this issue, Bajaj said under oath that he purchased
the 'Lay's' packet at Brahmani Provision Stores in Thaltej, Ahmedabad.

5.Reasoning
The court reasoned that because PepsiCo could not refute that the packet purchased by Bajaj
was their product, the claim that he did not have a bill and hence was not a customer under the
Consumer Protection Act was overruled. CERS requested the court to direct PepsiCo to deposit
Rs. 2, 00,000 in the Consumer Welfare Fund and award Rs.2,75,250 as punitive damages. And
also to give Rs.75, 000 as costs of litigation.

The End…………………………………………………………………………………………..