DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, TEHSIL COMPLEX,
M A N S A.
CC No.187 of 2014
Date of Institution: 07.10.2014
Date of Disposal : 09.02.2015
Ravinder Kumar S/o Multan Singh, One Way Traffic Road, Opposite Mohan
Pastry, Mansa.
..... Complainant.
VERSUS
1. Bharti Retail Ltd (EASYDAY) Shop No.148-149, Adjoining Indus Ind
Bank, Mandir Wali Gali, Mansa.
2. Wave Beverages Pvt. Ltd., 14 KM Stone, Amritsar-Jallandhar GT Road,
V&PO Nawan Kot, Near Jandiala Guru, District Amritsar, 143115
3. Amritsar Cold Drinks, 14-A, Opposite P.F.Colony, Old Jail Road,
Amritsar, District Amritsar.
..... Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
............
Present:-
For complainant : Sh.S.K.Singla, Advocate.
For OP No.1 : Sh.N.K.Sharma, Advocate.
For OP No.2 &3 : Sh.Rakesh Singla, Advocate.
Quorum:-
Sh.Shiv Pal Bansal, Member.
Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member.
Contd........2
Page No.2 of 7
ORDER:-
Brief facts of the case are that on the morning of 24.8.14 on the
arrival of certain guests, complainant bought two bottles of 'Sprite' Cold
Drinks for Rs.114/- from OP No.1, OP No.2 is the manufacturer thereof.
Complainant served cold drink from one of the bottles to his guests, but the
guests found some objectionable and unhealthy objects floating in the glass
tumblers. Complainant felt very embarrassing before his guests.
Complainant inspected the other sealed bottle and found same type of
objectionable and unhealthy foreign object floating in the liquid. Thus OPs
have sold low quality product to the complainant and by selling unhygienic
drinking material, OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice. Due to the act
and conduct of OPs complainant has suffered mental tension, physical
harassment and has to face unwanted humiliation in the presence of his VIP
guests. Complainant is thus entitled to recover Rs.114/- alongwith
Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs of this forced
litigation from the OPs.
2. OP No.1 in its reply averred that replying OP is continuously
purchasing in bulk the cold drinks including the cold drink in question from
OP No.3 since long. Particulars of the cold drink bottle is mentioned in Para
No.2 of the reply. Replying OP sells the cold drink bottles in the same
sealed and incat condition as her purchases, to its customers. OP No.1 has
sold such sealed and intact condition bottle on 24.8.14 to whom the sale
slip/invoice slip has been issued. Possibility cannot be ruled out that the
person purchases the cold drink from market or from the street shop without
bill and after getting the invoice of replying OP from somewhere else, files
the complaint before the Hon'ble Forum. Residence of complainant is at
about 1 km away from the shop of replying OP. If suddenly some guests
arrive, complainant is expected to purchase the cold drink from a nearby
shop and not from the shop of OP No.1. Circumstances show that
complainant has not purchased the cold drink in question from replying OP.
Complainant had not made any complaint to replying OP when he noticed
foreign body in the cold drink. Had the complainant approached replying
OP, replying OP would have changed the bottle and complained the matter
to the company, but complainant directly filed the present complaint even
without giving any legal notice to OPs. Only the manufacturer or packer can
disclose as to what is the micro or very small part of substance floating in
the cold drink. However, it seems that the micro/small white part is of the
bottle stopper which is made of cork and it is not harmful. It is further
pleaded that OP No.1 always purchases quality goods from market for its
customers to enjoy the same. OP No.2 manufactures quality branded goods.
It cannot be said that complainant certainly had purchased the cold drinks
himself from OP No.1. However invoice attached with the complaint is
admitted to be of OP No.1. Complainant has not produced opened bottle
with some floating material or the material which was floating in the other
opened bottle. So it cannot be said that some objectionable and unhealthy
material was there in the opened or actually there was nothing in the bottle
which was opened and used. Complainant never made any complaint
regarding any bottle to replying OP. He never sent any email or made
complaint to the Company on its toll free number written on the neck of the
bottle. Cold drinks with same date of manufacturing and batch number and
of the same brand are also available in the market. Rest of the averments
made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for
dismissal of same with special costs.
3. OP No.2 & 3 have filed joint written version and have taken
several legal objections that complainant has no cause of action and locus
standi to file the present complaint. Complainant is not a consumer and he
has not come to the Forum with clean hands. He has concealed true and
material facts. He is not entitled for any compensation or litigation
expenses as prayed for. It is admitted that replying OP is manufacturer of
various types of soft drinks including Sprite. Replying OP manufactured
good quality of soft drinks of various types. It is denied for want of
knowledge that OP No.1 is selling any soft drinks. It is further pleaded that
product is sold in the market after carefully inspecting the quality and after
passing the same from the laboratory. Complainant has concocted a false
story just to get wrongful benefits from this Hon'ble Forum. The seeing of
the product clearly show that the complainant opened the bottle and after
opening, the seal of the same again put and fixed cleverly. It also shows
from the cap of the bottle in question that the bottle sealed after opening the
same. Rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied and a
prayer has been made for dismissal of same with costs.
4. Complainant has tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to C-3 and
closed entire evidence. On the other hand OP No.1 has tendered into
evidence Ex.OP1/1 & Ex.OP1/2. OPs No.2&3 have tendered Ex.OP2&3/1
to Ex.OP2&3/3, which includes the affidavits of respective parties.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the file.
6. Complainant purchased two bottles of 'Sprite' on 24.8.14 for
Rs.114/- from OP No.1 in the morning. 'Sprite' was manufactured by OP
No.2. One bottle was opened at his house and when poured in tumblers
some objectionable and unhealthy object was seen floating. Same thing
was found floating in the second bottle.
7. Learned counsel for OP No.1 argued that Toll Free Number is
mentioned on the neck of the bottle. Complainant must complaint either to
Easy Day or to the Company, but the complainant did not do so. We feel,
although complainant did not place on file any record of complaint to the
Easy Day or Company, but it does not effect the merits of the case. He
further argued that the bottle in question has no foreign body or unhealthy
object. The floating thing is a piece of cork which may be added in the cold
drink during packing time. It means it is admitted that something is
floating in the bottle.
8. Another contention is that the house of complainant is about 1
km from the Easy Day from where he purchased the bottle of Sprite. Many
other shops including famous Giani Sweet Shop is lying between this 1 km
distance. Why the complainant came on the shop of Easy Day when
suddenly some guests came to his house in the morning. It is merely
concocted story to grab easy money from OPs. This contention has no
value. It is a matter of faith/good reputation or standard. The person who
has no monetary problem wants to purchase goods from the reputed
provisional stores. Moreover, it is matter of his standard. Easy Day
Provisional Store has good reputation in the market. It does not matter that
due to long distance person cannot purchase goods from it. So this
contention has no value.
9. Learned counsel for OP No.1 admitted Ex.C-3 bottle in
question and Ex.C-2 invoice. Learned counsel argued that it is possible that
complainant may purchase bottle from anywhere else and collect the invoice
from someone else.
10. We have perused the invoice Ex.C-2 which reveals the quantity,
rate and time but no customer name is mentioned on it. During arguments,
learned counsel has brought to our knowledge that there is practice of OP
No.1 to write customer's name on the invoice meaning thereby that by its
wrong act OP No.1 cannot forfeit the rights of the customers.
11. Learned counsel for OP No.2 and 3 has taken objection that
complainant did not mention any date and time for the guest's arrival and
there is no affidavit of any VIP guest. But para No.3 of the pleading reveals
that the guest came on 24.8.14 in the morning. Ex.C-2 invoice support this
plea because it reveals time 10:22:43 on 24.8.14. It means the cold drink
was purchased in the morning time on 24.8.14. No one guest give his
affidavit, if we ourself are the guest of someone else we will not give any
affidavit. So these objections have no value.
12. Another objections are seal is broken from the head; Why the
complainant remained silent more than 1 month and there is no laboratory
report. Learned counsel argued that the bottle in question was produced in
the Forum on 14.10.14 which was inspected by the learned Counsel for OP
No.1 before filing the written version. No objection has been taken by OP
No.1 in his written version. It means seal is intact. Learned Counsel for
complainant argued that the thing which can be seen by naked eye then there
is no need for laboratory report. Learned Counsel for complainant argued
that without specific denial it is considered that allegation is admitted by
OPs. It is not mandatory to call on Toll Free Number for the purpose of
complaint. No stock register is produced by OPs. It means product is
admitted by OPs and bottle in question is duly sealed.
13. From the above said discussion, we come to the conclusion that
edible things should be neat and clean which are purchased from reputed
stores because the consumer also wants to maintain his standard when some
one's reputation downs before VIP guests due to this unfair trade practice. It
is very awkward situation for the consumer after spending money. So OPs
are liable to compensate the complainant for his acts. All the OPs should be
careful in case of edible things what they are selling to their customers.
14. Resultantly complaint is accepted and all the OPs are directed
to pay Rs.15,000/- as consolidated amount of compensation within 30 days
from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount
of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till final realization.
15. Certified copies of order be communicated to the parties free of
cost by registered post and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced:
09.02.2015
Neena Rani Gupta, Shiv Pal Bansal,
Member. Member.
*neera*