Woman bought dog food and found live worms and insects in it: what the court decided
In India, the consumer protection court in Chandigarh ordered Drools Pet Food Private Limited to pay compensation to a woman who purchased a sealed package of food for her Labrador and found that the product was "spoiled and infested with worms and insects," writes IndianExpress.
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Commission in its decision found the company guilty of improper service provision and unfair trade practices. The court ordered the manufacturer to refund the woman the cost of the product — about 6 dollars — with 6% annual interest from the date of purchase, as well as pay over 100 dollars in compensation and cover court costs.
In her complaint, Himani Jamwal stated that on April 28, 2023, she purchased "Drools Absolute Calcium (sausages)" pet food and other dog products. When she opened one of the sealed sausages on May 7, 2023, she allegedly found that the product was "spoiled and infested with live worms and insects."
According to Jamwal, she documented the condition of the product with photos and videos, after which she contacted the company via WhatsApp, email, and customer support demanding a response to the situation.
In its response, the company confirmed the purchase and the consumer's contact with the customer service department. At the same time, the manufacturer stated that the product must be stored in a cool and dry place, and failure to comply with these conditions "could have led to the sausage losing its integrity and becoming vulnerable to worm infestation."
However, the commission found no convincing grounds for such a defense. The court noted that the company did not provide evidence that the buyer mishandled the product or violated storage conditions.
Stating that "the defendant's claim of improper storage is purely speculative and cannot be taken into account," the commission rejected the company's position.
The manufacturer also claimed that the plaintiff did not provide a veterinary report linking the product to the dog's illness. The court disagreed with this argument, noting that it "has no grounds, since this consumer complaint primarily concerns the poor quality of the product, not medical harm."
In conclusion, the commission found that the company "was negligent and guilty of improper service provision and unfair trade practices by selling a defective pet food product," and partially satisfied the claim.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
