This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Niranjan Reddy, Advocate for complainant; Sri.K.L.N.Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.1; Sri.B.Tirumala Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.2; Sri.B.Kalyan Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.3; notice of opposite party No.4 served and called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration this forum passed the following:
ORDER
(Per Sri Vijay Kumar, President)
This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that on 11-5-2010 afternoon, the complainant had approached opposite party No.1 and purchased Haywards 5000 beer by paying an amount of Rs.70/- vide bill No.582, dt.11-5-2001 with Batch No.22186 and the date of manufacture is 20-12-2009, after purchase of the said beer bottle, he found foreign object in the bottle, particularly gutka packet, the same was brought to the notice of opposite party No.1, but opposite party No.1 gave an evasive reply throwing the burden on manufacturer/ opposite party No.2 saying that he is not the manufacturer of the said beer and he could not see what is inside the bottle. The complainant further stated that the opposite party No.3 being the supplier and opposite party No.4 being the overall supervision over the excise products in the district, even did not choose to check the genuinely and quality of the excise products in the district. Hence, the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards damages for manufacturing and supplying of spurious and adulterated Haywards 5000 beer which contained foreign object and Gutkha sachets and for pain, suffering and mental agony, to award costs of the complaint.
2. In support of his complaint, he himself filed affidavit and filed the receipt No.582, dt.11-5-2010, which is marked as Ex.A.1 and three newspaper scraps of Andhra Jyothi, Sakshi and Eenadu, dt.12-5-2010, showing the news ‘Gutka packet in beer bottle’, marked as Ex.A.2.
3. On being noticed, opposite party No.1 to 3 appeared through their counsels and inspite of receipt of notice, opposite party No.4 did not appear before the Forum.
4. Opposite party No.1 to 3 filed their counters denying the allegations made in the complaint and opposite party No.1 submitted that the claim Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and mentally is highly excessive and the complainant is entitled only for costs of the bottle he purchased and opposite party No.2 submitted that that the products manufactured by the company are made with the latest technology and in most hygienic conditions using best quality of raw materials and have adopted best manufacturing practices and have manual as well as electronic sighters to detect any foreign object in the beer bottle and all best efforts and safe guards are adopted in keeping with the highest standards for manufacturing and bottling. Opposite party No.3 submitted that on verification of supplies of Haywards 5000 brand beer by opposite party No.2 to this opposite party No.3 for the months of December, 2009 to May, 2010 it revealed that impugned beer purchased by complainant viz., Haywards 5000 brand and bill No.582, dt.11-5-2010 said to be issued by opposite party No.1 mentioning batch No.22186 and date of manufacture as 20-12-2009 is not the one out of supplies made to this opposite party No.3 and in turn distributed by this opposite party No.3. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. Apart from the complaint and counters, both the parties submitted their written arguments.
6. Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the points that arose for consideration are,
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim
as prayed for ?
- To What relief?
Point No.1:-
7. In this complaint, the complainant purchased Hywards 5000 beer by paying Rs.70/- from the opposite party No.1, which was manufactured by opposite party No.2. After purchase, the complainant found the foreign object in the bottle particularly gutcka sachet, immediately brought the same to the notice of opposite party No.1, but the opposite party No.1 gave evasive reply, throwing the burden on opposite party No.2. For that the complainant experiencing pain, suffering and mental agony because of the negligence acts of opposite parties and there is deficiency of service in manufacturing and supply of the beer bottle up to the mark and human consumption. As such he filed the complaint.
8. Opposite party No.1 raised objection that from the complaint, the said beer is not consumed and even he has not opened the seal of the bottle. He apprehends danger to health. The opposite party No.2 has taken an objection that the bottle of beer has not been presented for inspection and the same was claimed to be manufactured by South African Breviaries and also submitted that they adopted best manufacturing practices and they have manual as well as electronic sighters to detect any foreign object in the beer bottle and also submitted that one complainant and allegation against millions of bottles have been bottled and sold without any complaint cannot be suggestive of negligence on the part of manufacturers in its bottling the beer and they have not had opportunity of inspecting the bottle and thorough analysis, so as to determine the root cause of problem, the complainant has neither granted any opportunity to them to investigate and analyze the alleged defective product. The opposite party No.3 raised an objection that they have no occasion to open the packed cartons, but for transmitting/ distributing the stock and they are no way concerned with gutka sachet alleging to have suffer pain and mental agony is baseless, claiming damages against opposite parties is not tenable. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
9. From the material available on record, the bottle itself was deposited before this Forum at the time of filing the complaint and batch number and date of manufacturing was clearly mentioned in the complaint by the complainant. On opening the bottle, which was kept in sealed envelope, found that there is a foreign object, gutka sachet inside the bottle. The presence of foreign material in the bottle clearly establishes the aspect that there was certainly carelessness in the process of manufacturing the beer. The presence of the most unhygienic foreign material in the beer bottle itself indicates that it is harmful for the human beings and it is nothing but a clear case of negligence on the part of opposite parties.
10. We cannot compensate the complainant in terms of money, so far as mental agony and sufferance suffered by him is concerned, we can help the complainant in minimizing the aforesaid mental agony and sufferance by directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards damages and costs.
11. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and for costs of the litigation. The opposite parties are further directed to pay the award amount to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of order till the date of realization.
Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this 30th day of November, 2011.
President Member
District Consumer Forum,
Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant:- None
Witnesses examined for opposite parties:- None
Exhibits marked for Complainant:
Ex.A.1 - Receipt No.582, dt.11-5-2010,
Ex.A.2 - Three newspaper scraps of Andhra Jyothi, Sakshi and
Eenadu, dt.12-5-2010, showing the news ‘Gutka packet in
beer bottle’.
Exhibits marked for opposite parties:- Nil -
President Member
District Consumer Forum,
Khammam
