Punjab

Sangrur

CC/100/2017

Jaggi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Allied Blenders and Distillers Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sunil Sharma

17 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    100

                                                Instituted on:      15.03.2017

                                                Decided on:       17.07.2017

 

 

Jaggi son of Baldev Singh, resident of H.NO.107, Ward No.7, Sunami Gate, Sangrur, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Allied Blenders and Distillers Private Limited, 394/C, Lamington Chamber, Lamington Road, Mumbai through its Managing Director.

2.     Batra Breweries and Distilleries Private Limited, Dera Bassi, SAS Nagar Mohali through its Managing Director.

3.     Royal Wine Shop, Patiala Gate, Sangrur Distt. Sangrur through its Proprietor/authorised signatory.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Sunil Sharma, Adv.

For opposite party No.1:             Shri Vikas Jain and

                                                Shri Devanshu Aggarwal, Adv.

For OP No.2 and 3     :               Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Jaggi, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 1.3.2017, the complainant went to the shop of OP number 3 and purchased one Officers Choice whisky of 180 ML packing for Rs.50/-, which has been manufactured by OP number 1 and 2, but the OP number 3 did not issue any bill to the complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that when he checked the bottle of whisky after some days, he got suspicious that there may be something wrong in the whisky bottle and shocked to see that there was some poisonous substance in the bottle. The complainant went to OP number 3 and complained about the foreign article in the bottle, but the OP number 3 did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant and further told that he is not the manufacturer of the whisky bottle. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay him a compensation of Rs.75,000/- on account of unfair trade practice and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.20,500/-.

 

2.             In written reply filed by the OP number 1, preliminary objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has concealed material facts, that it is crystal clear that the alleged bottle purchased by the complainant has been manufactured in the year 2009 and even otherwise, the wine shops do not retain such old stocks and clear their stock at the close of the financial year, that the complainant in connivance with other miscreants has tampered with some old bottle having old batch number and  manufacturing date had been added alien insect in the bottle only with the motive to extort money and to blackmail from OP number 1 and that the bottle in question has been manipulated and resealed by the complainant, that the complainant do not fall within the purview of the section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, as the complainant has not produced any memo regarding the purchase of the said product from OP number 3 on 1.3.2017.  On merits, the purchase of the said memo has been denied by the OPs by the complainant as the whisky alleged to be manufactured in the year 2009 and sold on 1.3.2017. It is stated that in the present case, doctorine of Caveat Empton applies, meaning thereby the complainant should be aware before buying any product.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit and ExC-2 officers choice whiskey quarter and closed evidence.   On the other hand, no evidence has been produced by OP number 1.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             At the outset, a bare perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainant has not produced on record any memo/bill dated 1.3.2017 to show that the complainant had purchased the whisky i.e. Officers Choice 180 ML by paying an amount of Rs.50/- to OP number 3.   Moreover, it is the specific stand of the OP number 1 that the Whisky bottle shows that the same has been manufactured and packed in the year 2009 and sale of the same in the year 2017 is not at all possible as the whole stock is cleared by the end of the financial year meaning thereby the sale could have been completed by 31.3.2010 and it is further contended by the learned counsel for OP number 1 that the complainant in connivance with other miscreants has tampered with some old bottle having old batch number and its manufacturing date had added alien insect in the bottle only with the motive to extort money and to blackmail the Ops.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he has not produced on record the copy of the memo and further he has not explained how its manufacturing shows the year 2009.  In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to establish the original purchase of the whisky in question from OP number 3 and such has further failed to prove a consumer of the OPs in any way.   In the circumstances, we find no case made out against the Ops of any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. 

 

6.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and as such, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        July 17, 2017.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                       

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member

 

 

 

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                        Member