BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 523 of 2014

Date of Institution: 26.09.2014

Date of Decision: 14.10.2015  

Mr.Satish Kapoor son of Sh.Karam Chand Kapoor, resident of 882/8, Gali No.4, Harkrishan Nagar, Kalle Road, Chheharta, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. A.D.Enterprises (Liquor Vend), Near Kabir Park, Amritsar through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Principal Officer.
2. Sabmiller India Limited, Jalahalli Camp Road, Yeshwantpur, Bangalore through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Principle Officer.
3. State of Punjab through Department of Excise and Taxation through its Commissioner having its office at McLeod Road, Amritsar service through AETC.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 & 13  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Deepinder Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Exparte.

    For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.Sandeep Kapoor, Advocate.

    For the Opposite Party No.3: Exparte.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Satish Kapoor under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one bottle HAYWARDS 5000 Beer from Opposite Party No.1 being marketed by Opposite Party No.2 and got brewed and supervised by Opposite Party No.3 for Rs.100/- on 13.6.2014 for his consumption. To his utter shock when the complainant took the said bottle of beer for consumption, he saw some foreign material in the bottle and on properly viewing found the ‘tooth brush’ in it, which when consumed may be hazardous to the health and life of the complainant. However, the Opposite Party No.1 did not issue the bill of the said product inspite of demand at its their common practice in not issuing any bill to any consumer. Said bottle  of the beer is properly sealed and even bears the seal of the Excise Department-Opposite Party No.3. The complainant on seeing the same went  back to the Opposite Party No.1 and showed the same to the executive there and instead of being apologetic and investigate the things he showed away the  complainant and told the complainant to do whatsoever he can do  as the liquor end is owned by the influential persons and no one can question them. The aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties in marketing/ selling and offering the hazardous products for human consumption and putting the health and life of the complainant in serious danger is an act of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and is not sustainable in the eyes of law and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment and tension to the complainant.              Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to  pay compensation of Rs.5 lacs and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties  No.1 and 3 despite due service, as such, Opposite Parties  No.1 and 3 are proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.11.2014 of this Forum.
3. On notice, Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 is part of a multinational company which is the second largest brewer in the world, having state of art plants situated at various locations in India. All the products are made with the latest technology and in most hygienic conditions and with the use of best quality of raw materials. Opposite Party No.2 processes and sells millions of bottles through out the year and in generality adhere to the principles of zero defects. It is incumbent upon the complainant to establish veracity of the allegations and to prove that the product suffers from the defect as alleged and that the Opposite Party No.2 was negligent while manufacturing the same. The impugned product needs to be analyzed by an independent laboratory as per Consumer Protection Act. The complainant admittedly did not consume the contents of the impugned bottle of beer and therefore there is no question of any loss, damage or harassment being suffered by the complainant. On merits, the Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that complainant has failed to adduce any proof of purchase viz. any purchase receipt to validate his claims of purchase and this further casts a shadow of doubt and raises a pertinent question as to whether the complainant is even a consumer under the Act. The allegation of finding a foreign material viz. tooth brush in the impugned bottle of beer by the complainant is vehemently denied and the same can be described only as a blatant lie made with an attempt to malign the reputation of the Opposite Party No.2. It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 adopts the best manufacturing practices and it has manual as well as electronic sighters to detect any foreign object/ particles in the beer bottle. The beer is pasteurized as a part of the manufacturing process wherein all the pathogens are destroyed and hence all chemical and biological impurities are eradicated and no harmful ingredients remain in the product. It is further submitted that Opposite Party No.2 is not privy to what actually transpired between the complainant and the Opposite Party No.1. It is suspected that the bottle in question is spurious and not manufactured by the Opposite Party No.2 and hence the possibility of tampering of bottle can not be ruled out. Opposite Party No.2 has not been approached  or has been shown any beer bottle nor has the  complainant provided any batch number as well as the manufacturing date printed on the beer, which is of utmost importance and hence this again puts a big question mark on the credibility of statements made by the complainant. It is  submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 has a customer care toll free number 1800-258-2504 and e-mail id:
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sridhar Ex.OP2/1and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, as alleged by the complainant,  he purchased one bottle HAYWARDS 5000 Beer from Opposite Party No.1 being marketed by Opposite Party No.2 and got brewed and supervised by Opposite Party No.3 for Rs.100/- on 13.6.2014 for his own  consumption and took the same to his residence. However, at residence, the complainant found some foreign material i.e. ‘tooth brush’ in the bottle, which could be hazardous to the health and life of the complainant if consumed. Complainant further mentioned that  Opposite Party No.1   did not issue the bill of the said product inspite of demand raised by the complainant on the ground that there is  common practice of not issuing any bill to any consumer. Said bottle  of the beer is properly sealed and even bears the seal of the Excise Department-Opposite Party No.3. The complainant also produced  this bottle of beer in this Forum. The complainant approached  to the Opposite Party No.1 and shown the said bottle of beer, but   instead of being apologetic, Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant to do whatsoever he can do. Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
8. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that the Opposite Party No.2 is part of a multinational company which is the second largest brewer in the world. All the products are made with the latest technology and in most hygienic conditions and with the use of best quality of raw materials. Opposite Party No.2 processes and sell millions of bottles through out the year and in generality adhere to the principles of zero defects and enjoys  tremendous goodwill because of its extremely good quality products. Each and every product manufactured by the Opposite Party No.2 undergoes a thorough, effective and stringent quality control check and unless each and every product meets the prescribed quality standards it is not cleared for sale by the Quality Control Department. Opposite Party No.2 is a very much diligent and careful about the quality of the products manufactured by it. Opposite Party No.2 further  alleges that complainant never approached to the Opposite Party No.2. He did not serve any notice  to the Opposite Parties  nor brought the facts into the notice of Opposite Party No.2. So, Opposite Party No.2 has been deprived of their right to examine the matter and to find out the truth. The complainant has submitted that he purchased the impugned bottle of beer from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.100/- on 13.6.2014, but the complainant has failed to produce any proof of purchase i.e. any bill or receipt to support his claim of purchase which  casts a shadow of doubt and raises a pertinent question as to whether the complainant is even a consumer under the Act. The allegation of finding a foreign material viz. tooth brush in the impugned bottle of beer by the complainant is vehemently denied and the same can be described only as a blatant lie made with an attempt to malign the reputation of the Opposite Party No.2. It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 adopts the best manufacturing practices and it has manual as well as electronic sighters to detect any foreign object/ particles in the beer bottle.  Moreover, the complainant has never shown the said bottle of beer to Opposite Party No.2 nor has provided any batch number as well as manufacturing date to Opposite Party No.2 which is utmost important. It also puts a big question mark on the credibility of statements made by the complainant. Opposite Party No.2 further  submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 has a customer care toll free number 1800-258-2504 and e-mail id:
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove that he had purchased a bottle HAYWARDS 5000 Beer from Opposite Party No.1 because no bill has been produced by the complainant regarding the purchase of this bottle of beer from Opposite Party No.1. Further, the complainant has submitted that he had purchased this bottle of beer from Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs.100/- on 13.6.2014 as is mentioned in his complaint and duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 whereas the bottle of beer allegedly purchased and produced by the complainant containing ‘tooth brush’ in the contents of the bottle, bears date of  manufacturing  26.6.2014. Moreover, the retail price of this bottle has been written as Rs.75/-. All this proves that the complainant has not mentioned the true facts in the complaint  because the retail price  of the bottle of beer is Rs.75/-, but the complainant has stated that he has purchased the same for Rs.100/-. Further, the date of manufacturing on bottle produced by the complainant himself is written as 26.6.2014 whereas the complainant has stated in his complaint as well as in his affidavit Ex.C1 that he had purchased this bottle of beer on 13.6.2014. How it is possible that the complainant has purchased this bottle of beer 13 days prior to its manufacturing nor the complainant has taken such plea in his complaint that the Opposite Party No.1 has sold this bottle of beer with aforesaid facts nor a prudent consumer can be presumed to have purchased such like product 13 days prior to the manufacturing date  mentioned on the product and the product of Rs.75/-  for Rs.100/-. Further, the complainant has not mentioned any manufacturing date, batch number, expiry date of the product in his complaint, nor he produced the bottle/ product in question at the time of filing of the complaint because it has been categorically written in the complaint that the complainant will place before the Forum said bottle of beer lateron on the date of preliminary hearing, which proves that he has not submitted this bottle of beer in the Forum alongwith complaint nor he has submitted any application to send this bottle to the appropriate laboratory for analysis/ report to find out whether it is actual product/ manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 or is spurious product as alleged by Opposite Party No.2 in their  written version as well as in their affidavit. So, in view of the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove his complaint .
10. Resultantly, we hold that the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 14.10.2015.                                                          (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                             President

hrg                                                                      (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

                                     Member