Amway guilty of misbranding, asked not to sell two products

New Delhi, Nov 8 Global direct selling major Amway has been asked to remove two of its products from sales by the apex counsumer commission which also slapped a fine of Rs one lakh on it for wrongly branding its products.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) asked Amway India Enterprises Pvt Ltd to remove Amway Madrid Safed Musli (Apple) and Kohinoor Ginger Garlic Paste from the market within a period of six weeks.

"As these products have been sold to certain consumers and they have suffered on account of the unfair trade practice adopted by the petitioner in respect of these two products, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the State Commission setting aside the order of the District Forum for awarding exemplary damages of Rs 1,00,000 to be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund mentioned in the order," NCDRC Presiding Member Prem Narain said.

"The petitioner company shall also issue the corrective advertisement as ordered by the District Forum. If the petitioner company wants to reintroduce these products, the same may be introduced after getting the approval from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India," the NCDRC said.

According to the petition filed by Consumer Guidance Society, an Andhra Pradesh-based NGO, three items were found to be misbranded or adulterated after samples of products of the firm were tested by the Chief Public Analyst of State Food Testing Laboratory.

The district forum in 2007 had asked the company to remove two out of the three adultrated/misbranded products from market and directed it not to indulge in such unfair trade practices in future.

It had also imposed Rs one lakh as exemplary damages and asked the firm to deposit the amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund.

The state commission had, however, partly allowed the appeal of the firm by asking it not to pay the damages on the ground that the NGO did not suffer any loss.

However, the apex consumer commission considered this as a material irregularity and said the State Commission has perhaps mistook this cost to have been awarded to the respondent which is not correct.