DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 137 of 5.4.2016
Decided on: 10.5.2017
Rajinder Singh , R/o 7-B, Majithia Enclave & S/o Jaswant Singh, Patiala 147005. Mobile No.9592035595, tel No.01752208601.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Amrit Dairy Opp. Power Colony, Chatha Market, Badungar, Patiala.
2. The Consumer Services Manager, Dhillon Kool Drinks & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. G.T.Road, Phillaur, District Jalandhar (Punjab) 144410 Bottling for Pepsi.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Rajinder Singh, complainant in person.
Opposite party No.1 ex-parte.
Sh.Sanjay Bharaj, Advocate, counsel for Op No.2.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Rajinder Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.). The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. That the complainant along with other products purchased six bottles (made of glass) of 300ml Lehar Pepsi, from OP no.1. Out of these bottles, in one bottle, he found a big card in the drinking contents. It is averred that though a very high standard is maintained by the international companies, even then, why such kind of carelessness has been observed. It is further averred that the OP no.2 has wrongly claimed that it is keeping very high standard of hygiene in its bottling plant. Had it been taking all the measures of hygiene while filing up the bottles, then the question of detection of big card in side the bottle would not have arisen. The contamination of drinking contents could be dangerous to the health of the consumer. It is stated that earlier also he had filed two complaints, because of less weight of products than the actual weight, which were allowed by this Forum. It is prayed that an exemplary costs be imposed upon the company for causing danger to the health of the consumer and it also be directed to pay legal expenses.
3. On being put to notice, OP no.1 failed to come present despite service and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.5.2016.
OP no.2 appeared and filed its written version taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer qua it; that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature and has been filed just to injure the interest and reputation of it, and that the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is denied that Lehar Pepsi 300 ML bottle is manufactured by it. It is stated that the complainant has filed the present complaint by procuring or using spuriously filled drink which is readily available in the market and the cork/crown can easily be removed or refitted on the bottle. That the complaint has been filed in connivance with OP no.1, as OP no.1 is not its authorized agent. It is stated that beverages are bottled by Dhillon Kool Drinks & Beverages Pvt.Ltd. Phillaur and its bottling are fully automatic and the sophisticated machinery is being used for washing, filling and crowing of the bottles and at no stage the product is being touched by the human hands, which itself ensures a very high standard of hygiene and cleanliness and with strict quality checks and rechecks ruling out any possibility of any inferior material as alleged in bottle does not arise. All the liquid is tested at the laboratory and sent for being filled in the bottles and as such the question of negligence etc. does not arise. There is no deficiency of service on its part. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith document Ex.C1 and closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for Op No.2, tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Sh.M.L.Mehta, authorized signatory of OP no.2 alongwith documents, Exs.OP1 to OP8 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant, the ld. counsel for OP no.2, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for OP no.2 and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The complainant has submitted that he alongwith other products purchased six bottles of 300ML Lehar Pepsi from OP no.1, manufactured by OP no.2, for a sum of Rs.120/- vide invoice, Ex.C1. Out of the said bottles, in one bottle, there was a big card inside the bottle. He averred that the liquid contained in the bottle got contaminated because of the said card, which could be dangerous to the human health.
7. On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the OP No.2 vehemently argued that OP no.1 is not its authorized dealer and it had never supplied any of its product to it. Even otherwise, OP no.2 manufactures its products in very hygienic condition and question of having foreign material i.e. card in the bottle of Lehar Pepsi does not arise at all. He further submitted that the bottle produced before this Forum may be spurious and the complainant has filed this complaint in connivance with OP no.1 just to defame it. Complaint is false, frivolous baseless and same may kindly be dismissed with costs.
8. From the Bill dated 20.2.2016,Ex.C1, it is evident that the complainant had purchased six glass bottles of Lehar Pepsi, for a sum of Rs.120/- alongwith other products. The sealed bottle, kept in the safe custody, was opened in the open court, and it was found that there was some foreign particle i.e. a card in it. The plea of OP no.2 is that the impugned bottle is spurious one. Even if, so, the onus is upon it to prove the said fact. Merely by saying that the impugned bottle is spurious, will not serve any purpose, unless it is proved beyond any doubt. The OP no.2 could have made a request to this Forum for sending the impugned bottle to some authorized, laboratory for testing. But no such efforts were made by it for establishing that the impugned bottle is spurious one. Thus, the plea of the OP no.2 is not tenable . It may be stated that it is immaterial whether OP no.1 is dealer of OP no.2 or not but it is important to note that a sealed bottled in question has been proved to be manufactured by OP no.2 and it contains some foreign particle. That being so, the liquid contained in the said bottle cannot be said to be fit for consumption, as such the OP no.2 being manufacture of the said product is liable to compensate the complainant. Since OP no.1 has just sold the duly sealed cold drink bottle to the complainant and has played no role in manufacturing the same, therefore it being a simple seller cannot be held liable for the defect/imperfection etc. in any manner in the said bottle. Therefore, the complaint qua it is liable to be dismissed there being no deficiency on its part. Taking all these facts and circumstances in to consideration, we are of the view that end of justice would be met, if, a lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be given by Op no.2 to the complainant.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against OP no.1 and allow the same against OP no.2 and direct it to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within a period of 40 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order,failing which it shall pay interest @7% per annum on the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the date of order till realization. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:10.5.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
