In a significant ruling reinforcing consumer rights and food safety standards, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana, has held a KFC outlet and its parent company liable for serving food that allegedly caused food poisoning to a customer.
The Commission President Sanjeev Batra and its member Monika Bhagat have directed the outlet to pay a compensation of Rs 25,000 to the consumer for deficiency in service and sale of a hazardous product.
“It cannot be said that the consumption of food item was not the immediate or proximate cause for deterioration of health of the complainant.
In the given set of circumstances, the product liability action initiated by the complainant against the opposite parties on account of sale of hazardous/harmful product is sustainable”, observed the commission, rejecting the demand of dismissal of complaint”.
The orders came on a complaint moved by Amarjot Singh, a resident of New Janta Nagar, Ludhiana. He had alleged that on November 11, 2023, he had purchased take-away food items including hot wings, a regular cold drink, and regular fries for Rs 256 from the KFC outlet located at JMD Govardhan City Centre in the city.
According to the complaint, the outlet’s staff assured him that the food was fresh. However, within 30 minutes of consuming the hot wings, Singh experienced severe abdominal pain, vomiting, weakness, and mental distress. He immediately sought medical treatment from a local doctor, who, after examination, indicated symptoms consistent with food poisoning and administered medication, including an injection. The complainant claimed to have remained bedridden for nearly a week and claimed loss of business and mental agony.
He further contended that despite serving a legal notice to the company, no action was taken, forcing him to approach the Consumer Commission.
The opposite parties—M/s KFCPUN Sapphire Foods India Ltd. and KFC Pvt. Ltd.—contested the complaint, raising objections regarding its maintainability.
They argued that the complainant was not a “consumer” under the Act and alleged that he had concealed material facts. The company maintained that on the day in question, it had served around 215 food items without receiving any complaints regarding quality or safety. It also argued that no laboratory report or conclusive medical evidence was produced to establish the food contaminated.
After examining the evidence and hearing both sides, the Commission ejected the objections raised by the opposite parties.
It stated that food items fall within the definition of “goods” under the Consumer Protection Act, and consumers have a statutory right to safety against hazardous products.
The commission further observed that the timeline of events supported the complainant’s case. It noted that the food was consumed around noon and the complainant sought medical attention shortly thereafter, with supporting prescriptions and bills placed on record.
Importantly, the Commission ruled that the consumption of the food item was the proximate cause of the complainant’s illness. It held that the complainant had successfully established a case of product liability and deficiency in service.
While the Commission said that the amount is to be paid by the opposite parties within 30 days, failing which it will carry an interest of 8 per cent annually from the date of filing of the complaint until realisation.
