Worms found in dog food pack worth Rs 540, woman wins Rs 10,000 compensation

“In view of the above discussion, it is safe to hold that the OP (Drools Pet Food) was negligent and guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by selling a defective food product meant for pets and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed,” the June 2 order read.

The consumer body was hearing the plea filed by a woman who bought packed sealed food for her pet but claimed that the food had worms and sought compensation for the same.

‘No proof of mishandling’

• The commission found that Drools Pet Food had failed to produce any evidence showing that the complainant mishandled the product or failed to store it in a cool and dry place as required.
• The consumer body also noted that the company, in an email sent to the complainant, had apologised for the incident and acknowledged its shortcoming.
• However, it simultaneously suggested that the infestation may have occurred during transit due to improper handling.
• The commission observed that even the company’s own explanation was uncertain, as it merely suggested that the infestation “might have” occurred due to improper storage.
• Such a defence, the commission held, was purely speculative and could not absolve the manufacturer of liability.
• Drools Pet Food was further directed to pay Rs 10,000 to the complainant as compensation for the harassment caused as well as litigation expenses.

Worms in packed pet food

• It was placed on record that the complainant has a seven-year-old pet black Labrador dog for whom she purchased Drools Absolute Calcium (sausages), along with some other pet articles, from a store in Chandigarh on April 4, 2023.
• According to the complainant, when she opened one of the sealed sausage packs on May 7, 2023, she found it to be rotten and infested with live worms and insects.
• The complainant immediately clicked pictures/ photographs as well as videos of the alleged sight and called the customer care number available on the website as well as on the box of the product.
• It was further added that the complainant also sent a message on WhatsApp and even wrote an email seeking redressal. The said food manufacturing company allegedly, by an email May 9, 2023, apologised and accepted its shortcoming and requested to provide a sample of the subject sausage, which the complainant refused.
• It was alleged that the complainant had purchased a well-sealed product within the expiry date and the said company was negligent in ensuring the quality and ingredients of the said product. Alleging that the said acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint.
• She did not provide any prescription from veterinary doctors

‘Storage instructions not complied with’

Drools Pet Food, represented by advocate Rahul Pandey, admitted that the complainant had purchased the product by a bill dated April 28, 2023.

It was further admitted that the complainant raised a complaint with the consumer relations department of the company through telephone on May 7, 2023, as well as email.

It was argued that as per the complainant’s own accord, she used a substantial part of the Drools sausage jar containing 18 pieces of sausages in the period between April 28, 2023, to May 7, 2023.

The company emphasised that the manner in which the product was supposed to be kept, which was to be stored in a cool and dry place to ascertain the requisite integrity of the product, was not complied with at complainant’s end, which subsequently might have resulted in loss of integrity of the sausage, making it prone to infestation by worms.

It was pleaded that the complainant cannot take an adverse and perverse stand against the company in the first place, as she admitted the sausage was not given to her pet and further there was no report/prescription of the veterinary doctors attached by the complainant showing that loose motion caused to her dog was due to product sold by the company.

The company pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part and sought dismissal of the consumer complaint.

Advocate Dheerja represented the complainant in the case.