Delhi

StateCommission

A/302/2017

KALU - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANKUR BANSAL - Opp.Party(s)

DWARKA

18 Jul 2017

ORDER

 

 

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :18.07.2017

Date of Decision : 19.07.2017

First Appeal No.302/2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Shri  Kalu,

S/o. Shri Prahlad,

C/o. Deepika Store,

Shop No.1, Ashoka Market,

Boulward Road,

Delhi-110054.                                                                                            ……Appellant

                                                                        Versus

 

1. M/s. Ankur Bansal,

Authorized Distributor for Bisleri,

2/27 Roop Nagar,

Delhi-110007.                                                                       ……….Respondent no.1

 

2. M/s. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd.,

60 Shivaji Marg,

New Delhi-110015.                                                             ……….Respondent no.2

 

CORAM

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

Present: Shri  Dwarka Sawale, counsel for appellant.

 

PER  : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

            Aggrieved by the orders dated 12.04.17 passed by District Consumer Redressal Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi in CC no.194/2013 awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards harassment and litigation expenses in favour of the complainant, Shri  Kalu has preferred  an appeal before this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for modification of the said order by increasing the compensation so awarded from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.85,000/- along with litigation expenses. They have also sought for a direction to the respondent no.2 not to act negligently in future about the manufacturing of the consumer commodity.

          The facts of the case are these.

          Shri Kalu the complainant before the District For a and the appellant herein, running as a small shop under the name and style of M/s. Deepika Store for the livelihood of himself and his family members. On 20.6.13 the appellant had purchased 10 boxes of Bisleri water from the respondent no.1 vide cash memo no.1735 dated 20.06.13 for a sum of Rs.1,300/- in cash with Batch no.17:24 B.No. DL/148 SS, Rs.18/- May 2013 with  no.8906017290040. The appellant while  checking the bottles was shocked and surprised to see the bacteria worms and insects etc. in one of its bottles  manufactures sealed, packed by respondent no.2. It is further alleged that the water in the bottle was not consumable/ drinkable being hazardous to the health and life.

          In the first instance the complainant approached the respondent no.1 who did not pay any attention to his complaint. The complainant thereafter approached the respondent no.2 but all in vain. Accordingly, he filed a complaint before the District For a praying for a sum of Rs.85,000/- toward the compensation for this act on the part of opposite parties, mental pain and agony, financial loss and claims towards litigation cost.

          The OP had filed a written statement before the District Fora. The OP no.2 in his  written statement  has objected to the complainant having filed a complaint about the water bottle purchased on 20.06.13. The OP therefore agued that this complaint was not sustainable as the complaint has been filed prior to the purchase of the bottle, the cause of action of the complaint. Besides request for the return for the alleged water bottles for undergoing analysis and test was not acceded to. The complainant on the contrary pressed for heavy compensation. The OPs had further argued that there  appears to be duplicacy of the water bottle in  their brand name namely “BISLERI”.

          The District Forum noticing these facts came to the conclusion that of justice would be met if the complainant is award a sum of Rs.15,000/-.

          We have given a careful consideration to the appeal filed and the grounds taken. We have also perused the complaint and the  pleadings before the District Fora. We have heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant on 18.07.17 when the matter was listed before this Commission for admission hearing.

          The short  question for determination in this case is whether the orders of the District Fora awarding compensation of Rs.15,000/- suffers from any infirmity.  We note that admittedly the water bottle containing the bacteria was not consumed by anyone. If that is the case there appears to be no danger to the life of anyone. Besides awarding of compensation in a matter is left to the total discretion of the court which would vary from case to case. There Lordships in her matter of Ghaziabad Development Authority V/s. Balabir  Singh reported in 11 (2004) CPJ 12 have held that the matter of compensation is something which would vary from facts of each case. There can not be any codified law on the subject.  Besides the compensation has to be reasonable, based on the principle of restitution interregnum which provides that a person is entitled to damages which would put him in same position as he would have been if he had not sustained wrong.

          The Consumer Fora is not meant to enrich a consumer as laid down. The NCDRC in Surender Kumar Tyagi is Jagat Nursing Hone reported in IV(2010) CPJ 199, have held that compensation has to be reasonable. It is not to enrich the consumers.

          On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court we find no infirmity in the order passed by the District Fora and we uphold the same .

          Ordered accordingly.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Rules 1987 read with Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.

Copy of the order may be sent to the District Forum for their information records.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                  (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                     MEMBER (JUDICIAL)