A packet of dog food bought for a seven-year-old Labrador triggered a consumer dispute after its owner discovered live worms inside the product. Holding the manufacturer responsible for selling a defective pet food item, a Chandigarh consumer commission ordered Drools Pet Food to refund Rs 540 and pay Rs 10,000 in compensation and litigation costs.

A bench of president Amrinder Singh Sidhu and member Brij Mohan Sharma rejected the company’s argument that the complainant had failed to produce any veterinary prescription relating to her pet, observing that the case concerned the quality of the product sold and not any medical injury suffered by the animal.

“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.

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.