JUDGMENT - G.G. LONEY, President, :---In this complaint, the allegations are made about the manufacture and sale of defective goods viz. "Pan Parag". Shortly stated the facts giving rise to this consumer dispute are that the complainant is a young man aged about 23 years residing at Bombay. The complainant had been a student and was studying for Fabrication Engineering at Father Agnel Polytechnic Vashi, New Bombay. The opposite party viz. M/s. Kothari Products Ltd., a company incorporated as a manufacturer of "Pan Parag". The product "Pan Parag" is sold throughout the country in seal handy pauches, tins etc. It contains panmasala comprising betal nut, ketchew calcium, ilaichi and powder of serveral other materials. The said product is sold in the market under the branded name "Pan Parag". It is alleged that over the prompt sale of "Pan Parag" opposite party spends crores of rupees on adverisement. It is also alleged that opposite party needs about Rs. 65 crores towards sale of their goods. According to complainant, "Pan Parag" is defective and hazardous to the citizen and alleged that he is regular user of the said hazardous goods. 2. The complainant further alleged that the advertisement on "Pan Parag" is displayed in electronic and print media canvassing the use of "Pan Parag". The complainant alleged that he started chewing "Pan Parag" since 1988 and formed the habit of chewing of "Pan Parag". The complainant used to purchase "Pan Parag" from his family grocer and other shops in Bombay as it is avalable anywhere in the city. The complainant further alleged that sometime in the last week of January, 1990 he experienced extreme pain in his mouth and he could not open his mouth and therefore complainant consulted his family physician Dr. Nitin C. Patel who referred him to Dr. Krishnakant Bhargav who examined the complainant and prescribed the medicines. According to complainant, after consuming the prescribed medicines, he found no improvement and therefore he was adviced to have check up with Tata Memorial Hospital. Accordingly, in the month of June, 1990, the complainant was examined and treated by Dr. A.N. Dalal and Dr. Sultan A. Pradhan who by his report dated 22-6-1990 observed as follows : Case No. BC-11612 22nd June, 1990 Vikram Sumant Desai M/19 years Sub Mucus Fibrosis Mr. Accordingly, in the month of June, 1990, the complainant was examined and treated by Dr. A.N. Dalal and Dr. Sultan A. Pradhan who by his report dated 22-6-1990 observed as follows : Case No. BC-11612 22nd June, 1990 Vikram Sumant Desai M/19 years Sub Mucus Fibrosis Mr. Vikram S. Desai is seen at this hospital today with the symptoms of inability to open his mouth adequately and pain on attempting to open the mouth wide. He was diagnosed as having sub mucus fibrosis which is an extremely disabling and also a premalignant condition. The interdental distance had reduced to just about 1 cm. with Submuccosal injection of steroids given earlier this month there is significant relief. The inter Anveolar distance is now 2.8 c.m. though the pain persists. Clinically there is evidence of submucus fibrosis mainly on the palate. This process may extend on the buccal mucosse result in severe disability. The complainant has the copies of the reports dated 15-6-1990 from Tata Memorial Hospital and report dated 22-6-1990 Dr. Sultan A. Pradhan of Tata Memorial Hospital. This young lad has been a regular user of Pan Parag for about 2 years. There are no other known predisposing dacto as such as use of alcohol, tobacco or excessive chillies. It is possible that submucus fibrosis has been caused by "Pan Parag". Whole this is a conjecture, and to prove it conclusively may take many years, it is important that the health authorities take cognisance of this possibility so that appropriate measures are taken thereby avoiding a terrible crippling conditions in young adults. Sd/- Dr. Sultan A. Pradhan Ms. FRCS. FACS, FCPS, Surgeon. 3. There is further report dated 18-1-1994 to the same effect which confirmed that the complainant suffered from "precancerous condition" from long time and till filing of this complaint. The complainant therefore alleged that his physical and mental well being has been jeopardised on account of disability to open his mouth to normal extent caused by "Precancerous condition" which is the direct result of chewing "Pan Parag" manufactured by opposite party. The complainant further alleged that because of his condition his family members suffered mental torture and are under constant apprehensions as regards the future of his life. The complainant further alleged that because of his condition his family members suffered mental torture and are under constant apprehensions as regards the future of his life. The complainant alleged that he is undergoing the extreme physical pain while opening his mouth with the result that he can hardly take solid food and is to depend on liquid diet. The complainant also alleged that his educational career has been adversely affected. The complainant therefore, alleged in this complaint that he suffered loss and injury as a result of defective and hazardous goods manufactured by the opposite party and claimed Rs. 20 lacs towards compensation. The complainant also claimed the aforesaid amount with interest. The complainant also prayed that this commission may prevent the production, sale of "Pan Parag" which affect the life and safety when offered for sale to the public in contravention of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 4. Notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act dated 25-4-1993 was sent to the opposite party which was received by it on 26-4-1993. A copy of postal acknowledgement is placed on record. However, opposite party neither made its appearance before this commission nor filed the written version in reply to the allegations made by the complainant in this complaint. We therefore proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party. 5. The complaint made the complainant and verified the contents before filing his affidavit. Thus, the allegations made in this complaint are duly verified and are made on solemn affiramtion. Thus, there is no reason for us to disbelieve the allegations made by the complainant, as they are not controverted by the opposite party. On the contrary the opposite party remained absent and totally ignored the notice sent by this commission under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has also filed the affidavit of Dr. A.G. Desai and as well as produced "Pan Parag" pauches. He has also filed the casepapers from Tata Memorial Hospital including the certified letter from Dr. A.S. Pradhan, Surgeon of Tata Memorial, Dr. Rawal also from the same hospital and Dr. Bhargav, E.N.T Specialist. The complainant has also filed the affidavit of Dr. A.G. Desai and as well as produced "Pan Parag" pauches. He has also filed the casepapers from Tata Memorial Hospital including the certified letter from Dr. A.S. Pradhan, Surgeon of Tata Memorial, Dr. Rawal also from the same hospital and Dr. Bhargav, E.N.T Specialist. The most important aspect which amounts the clear deficiency on the part of opposite party is that during the period when complainant used to chew "Pan Parag" pauches and packages contained no warning, whereas in the subsequent product such warning is that chewing of "Pan Parag" may be injurious to health. The aforesaid health warning is being mentioned on the pauches recently. But when the complainant has started chewing "Pan Parag" there was no such warning about the hazardous nature of goods which is injurious to health. Therefore, the complainant cannot be blamed for the use of "Pan Parag" prior to issue of such warning 6. Dr. Desais affidavit and the certificate and letter of Dr. Pradhan, Dr. Rawal and Dr. Bhargav have to be read alongwith papers of Tata Memorial Hospital which show that the complainant had habit of chewing daily one package of "Pan Parag", thus, using much amount of "Pan Parag" for whole year period. The medical evidence does not show any of the reasons for cancer suffered by the complainant. The documents which duly proved by the complainant and Dr. Desai by their affidavit. The complainant has stated his old educational background, family background and the industrial background. The physical and mental condition of complainant is as a result of consumption of "Pan Parag", a hazardous product manufactured by opposite party. The complainants life has become miserable. He has lost not only his career but also his married life. 7. From the aforesaid discussion, it is found that the opposite party as manufacturer of "Pan Parag" is liable for the production of defective and hazardous products. The complainant has proved his allegations that he suffered loss and injury as a result of manufacture and sale of hazardous and defective goods by opposite party. The complainant has very pathetically described the sufferings and the different diseases suffered by him due to consumption of "Pan Parag". The complainant has proved his allegations that he suffered loss and injury as a result of manufacture and sale of hazardous and defective goods by opposite party. The complainant has very pathetically described the sufferings and the different diseases suffered by him due to consumption of "Pan Parag". Under these circumstance, we hold that the complainant has successfully proved his allegations about the manufacture and sale of defective and hazardous goods by opposite party which caused loss and injury to complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled to claim Rs. 20 lacs towards compensation. The complainant has also claimed interest over the aforesaid amount @ 18% p.a. which in our view is not correct, and hence the prayers for the grant of interest requires to berejected. Hence, we pass the following order Order 8. Complaint is allowed. The opposite party viz. M/s. Kothari Products Ltd., Kanpur is directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs. 20 lacs towards compensation. The opposite party is also directed to pay complainant Rs. 1000/- towards costs. The rest of complainants claim are hereby rejected. Complaint allowed. *****