ORDER | 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* | |