Haryana

StateCommission

A/1020/2015

KAMAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

CARLSBERG INDIA PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAMENDER CHAUHAN

23 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1020 of 2015

Date of Institution:        30.11.2015

Date of Decision :         23.12.2015

 

Kamal Singh s/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh, Resident of Jain Chowk, Gali Thakur Gangu Singh Ki, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      The Customer Manager, Carlberg, India Private Limited, Plot No.52, Sector 32, Gurgaon-122001.

2.      The Contractor of Wine Shop near Bus Stand, Fountain Chowk Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of complainant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the order dated 29^th October, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.      Kamal Singh-complainant/appellant, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that on May 21^st, 2012 he purchased Carlsberg beer for Rs.120/- from a wine shop situated near Bus Stand, Charkhi Dadri-Opposite Party No.2. When he was in the process to open the lid of the bottle of beer, a dead insect was seen therein.

3.      The Customer Manager, Carlsberg India Private Limited-Opposite Party No.1, in his reply stated that without producing cash memo for the alleged purchase of beer, the complainant could not be termed as a consumer.  It was further stated that the company has an ultra modern well equipped high tech plants where bottles washer machines with PLC system are installed through which automatically the bottles are washed and cleaned to maximum possible level.  Denying the claim of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.  Opposite Party No.2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded exparte.

4.      During the hearing, the bottle of beer was produced by the complainant, the seal of the lid thereof was not disputed by the opposite party.  On inspection, the District Forum observed a dead insect visible in the bottle.  The genuineness of the bottle was not disputed by the opposite party. Taking into account the facts of the case, the District Forum directed the opposite parties to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. It is not the case of the complainant that beer was consumed by anybody.

5.      Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the view that the compensation awarded to the complainant is just and reasonable. No case for enhancement is made out. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

 

Announced 23.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL