Date of filing:23.1.2014.
Date of disposal:27.1.2015.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., PRESIDENT (FAC)
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JANUARY, 2015.
C.C.No.40 of 2014
Between:
Sri P.Jamalaiah, S/o Bangaru, 36 years, R/o Kethanakonda Village, Ibrahimpatnam (Mandal), Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by Consumers’ Guidance Society, Having its registered and administration Office at Flat No.1, 1st Floor,D.No.58-1-26, Veerapaneni Plaza, Patamata, Vijayawada – 520 010
……...Complainant.
AND
1. The Authorized Signatory, SABMiller India Ltd., Shivampet, Pulkat Mandal, Medak District, Nr.Sangareddy, Andhra Pradesh – 502 273.
2. The Authorized Signatory, Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Limited, 9 & 10, Eastern, 4th Floor, Prohibition and Excise Complex, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad – 500 001.
3. The Authorized Signatory, Sri Vijaya Lakshmi Wines, Jupudi, Krishna District.
.… Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 20.1.2015, in the presence of Consumers’ Guidance Society, Representing the complainant and Sri M.Samba Siva Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri N.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble President (FAC) Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief:
1. The complainant had purchased two bottles of knockout brand beer from the 3rd opposite party on 19.11.2013 for a sum of Rs.190/-. The complainant consumed one beer bottle on the same day. After consuming the 1st bottle the complainant noticed that a foreign particle in the form of a sharpening object inside the second sealed bottle. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directly responsible for manufacturing, marketing and offering for sale of such unsealed, unhygienic and hazardous beer bottle in contravention of mandatory rules and regulations laid down in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Therefore the complainant issued a legal notice demanding the opposite parties to pay compensation for the hazardous act and omissions having serious and grave impact on the health and safety of public at large. The 1st opposite party issued a reply disclaiming its liability for the sale of sealed beer bottle and also requested the complainant to handover the sealed beer bottle to its authorized representative for verification and scrutiny. The beer bottle containing a foreign particle clearly shows that the negligence of the opposite parties and therefore they are having liable and responsible for manufacturing, marketing and offering the same for sale to the public. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite parties praying the Forum to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to own the entire responsibility for manufacturing and supply of unsafe and unhealthy beer bottle by paying an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-to the credit of the Consumer Welfare Fund, Ministry of Consumer Affairs New Delhi by way of exemplary penalty to direct the 3rd opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for unexceptional metal agony and to pay costs.
2. The 1st opposite party filed its version. The 2nd opposite party filed vakalat but did not contest the matter. The 3rd opposite party remained absent.
The version of the 1st opposite party is in brief:
The 1st opposite party denied all the allegations of the complainant and submitted that the 1st opposite party is a Multi National Company which is the 2nd 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 with the use of best quality of raw materials. The 1st opposite party process and sells millions of bottles through out the year and adhere to the principles of zero defects. All the products are manufactured and packed through fully automatic machines. The 1st opposite party has quality control department. Each and every product manufactured by the 1st opposite party is undergo a thorough, effective and stringent quality control system and unless each and every product meets the prescribed quality standards, it is not cleared by the quality control system. The 1st opposite party is very much diligent and careful about the quality of the product manufactured by it. The alleged defect product in this case needs to be analyzed by an independent lab as per Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act. The beer is made in batches and hence it is generally not conceivable to have a product complaint in an isolated bottle. The 1st opposite party so far have not received any complaint from any other customers in respect of goods sold out in the market. The complainant did not consume the contents of the said bottle of beer and therefore there is no question of dispute with respect to either goods or services having arisen between the complainant and the opposite parties. The allegations are at best imaginary. None of the reliefs claimed by the complainant is maintainable. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. No affidavit and document is filed by the opposite parties.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any negligence on the part of the opposite parties in
manufacturing and supplying unsafe and unhygienic and hazardous beer
bottle for drinking to the complainant and public?
2. If so are the opposite parties liable for any penalty?
3. Is the complainant entitled for any relief from the 3rd opposite party?
4. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 TO 3:-
6. On perusing the material on hand as per the complainant he had purchased two bottles of knockout brand beer from the 3rd opposite party on 19.11.2013 for a sum of Rs.190/-. He consumed one bottle on the same day and after consuming the 1st bottle the complainant noticed a foreign particle in the form of a sharpening object inside the second sealed bottle. Therefore the complainant issued a legal notice Ex.A.1 dated 9.12.2013 to the opposite parties demanding the opposite parties as the opposite parties supplied hazardous and unhygienic beer bottle to the complainant. The opposite parties has to pay Rs.5,000/- and an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the Consumer Welfare Fund, Ministry of Consumer Affairs for their negligence. The opposite parties received the said notice and issued reply notice Ex.A.2 dated 17.12.2013 stating that at the context of good will gesture they are ready to investigate into the matter and shall depute one representative who shall visit client’s place as per his convenience to collect the defective bottle for thorough investigation. After receiving the reply notice the complainant got issued another rejoinder legal notice Ex.A.3 dated 29.12.2013 stating that the bottle would never be handed over to their representative as the buyer of the bottle determined to file a consumer case to prevent such events of sheer negligence on the part of the company in utter regard to the health and safety of consumers at large.
7. Mean while the proceedings in the Forum the opposite party filed a petition requesting the Forum to send the alleged beer bottle to the appropriate Laboratory test under Section 13(1)(c)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant filed his counter objecting the same that there is a visible foreign particle in the beer bottle manufactured and offered for sale by the 1st opposite party in utter describe the safety, health and well being of consumers. The said beer bottle was deposited in this Forum for the purpose of adducing evidence to prove and substantiate the contention of the complainant is quite visible by physical examination of the said beer bottle. Therefore there is no need to send the beer bottle to the laboratory for ascertaining the defects therein. As the alleged defect in beer bottle was physically seen and there is no need to send that bottle for laboratory test and the petition filed by the petitioner/opposite party is dismissed.
8. We the Forum on examination of Ex.A.4 beer bottle which was purchased by the complainant noted that there is a foreign particle in the form of sharpening object inside the sealed bottle supplied by the opposite parties. If the complainant or public drinks the beer in the said bottle it gives serious and grave impact on their health and safety. The acts of the opposite party clearly show their negligence on their part towards consumers who purchases and use that beer. Therefore the opposite parties are responsible for manufacturing, marketing and offering the same for sale, they are liable for unhygienic, hazardous and unhealthy of the public for using such type of beer. Hence they must be prevented seriously by way of imposing penalty for their negligence. The complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties for their negligence. Accordingly these points are answered.
POINT No.4:-
9. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to credit an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- each to the Consumer Welfare Fund, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi as penalty for not to repeat such type of negligent acts towards the consumers; and the opposite party No.3 is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month. Rest of the claims of the complainant are rejected.
Dictated to the Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 27TH day of January, 2015.
PRESIDENT(FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:
P.W.1 P.Jamalaiah, None.
Complainant,
(by affidavit)
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A.1 09.12.2013 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.2 17.12.2013 Letter from the 1st opposite party to the complainant’s advocate.
Ex.A.3 29.12.2013 Office copy of rejoinder notice and 30.12.2013 Postal receipt.
Ex.A.4 . . Beer bottle.
On behalf of the opposite parties:
Nil.
PRESIDENT(FAC)
