New Delhi, Aug 12 (IANS): The Rs.640-crore class action suit filed by the Indian government against Nestle alleging unfair trade practices and sale of defective goods with regard to Maggi is scheduled to be heard by the apex consumer disputes forum on Friday, officials said.
According to the media officer in the Department of Consumer Affairs, Rs.284.55 crore has been sought for unfair trade practice of selling defective and hazardous goods, and Rs.355.40 crore as punitive damage from Nestle at the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
"The department has filed this class action suit on behalf of the large number of consumers of Maggi in the country against Nestle India on the grounds of unfair trade practices, sale of defective goods and sale of Maggi Oats Noodles to the public without product approval," he said.
"The punitive damages have been claimed on account of gross negligence, apathy and callousness on the part of the opponent company."
When contacted, a Nestle spokesperson told IANS: " We have not received any official notice about the complaint. We will try to respond after receiving the official papers and upon consultations with our legal team."
He said Nestle was also awaiting the verdict of the Bombay High Court.
The complaint, the department's media officer said, has been filed under Section 12(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Under this clause, the central or the state government may file such suits in the interests of the consumers in general file.
In a class action suit, a single case is filed collectively by a group of people or on its behalf. The central or state governments can also become the complainants.
According to one of the law officers representing the government, who did not wish to be named, the complaint was filed on three grounds -- unfair trade practice, release of products without sanction and presence of harmful substances.
Reacting to the suit filed in the consumer court, senior counsel Vivek Tankha, who was additional solicitor general in the previous United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, felt such action could have come after some matters were settled.
"I feel it is over-reaching, too early. Even today we're getting inconsistent reports from different laboratories in India and abroad," Tankha told IANS, also referring to the matter being sub-judice in the Bombay High Court.
"Government should have shown patience. It should not have rushed into ill-advised litigation at this stage. Compensation suits are filed on crystallised facts," he said.
"In this case, the fact that Maggi is bad for health is in dispute, sub-judice. The Bombay High Court still has to give the judgment. Whosoever is unsuccessful will file an appeal before the apex court."