Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/770

Jatin Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Coca Cola India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Hari Om Jindal

07 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.770 of 12.11.2014

Date of order          : 07.08.2017

Jatin Kumar aged about 24 years son of Shri Vijay Kumar, resident of House No.2769, Street No.4, New Janta Nagar, A.T.I.Road, Ludhiana.

Complainant

Versus

 

1.Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd., Enkay Towers, Udyog Vihar-V, Gurgaon-122106, through its Director/M.D.

2.The Ludhiana Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Authorized dealer of Coca-Cola Pvt. Ltd., village Bhattian Dhaha, District Ludhiana, through its Managing Director/Manager.

IInd Address:

185, Near A-One Cycle, G.T.Road, Ludhiana.

3.M/s Sharma Cold Drink, Opp.Arora Cinema, Street No.3, New Janta Nagar, Gill Road, Ludhiana through its Proprietor Kishan Lal.

Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant               :         Sh.Hari Om Jindal, Advocate

For OP1                          :         Sh.G.S.Sandher, Advocate

For OP2                           :         Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate

For OP3                           :         Ex-parte

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.              Complainant purchased one 200 ML Maaza bottle for his personal use for consideration from shop of OP3 in the area of New Janta Nagar, Ludhiana. When complainant was going to open the seal of said bottle for consuming the same, then he was shocked to see that there were three insects in this bottle. Thereafter, complainant reported the matter to Ops through emails, who disclosed that concerned personnel of the bottler will get in touch with the complainant shortly for inspecting the bottle and thereafter, action will be taken against the concerned employee. Complainant waited for one month, but no further response was received regarding the taken action. Thereafter, again complainant sent email dated 24.8.2014 to Ops, but no action was taken. Matter was highlighted in the newspapers. Complainant reported the matter to Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana vide written representation dated 15.9.2014 bearing No.7196, but to no effect. Above said gravest act of deficiency in service on the part of Ops caused immense mental tension, agony, harassment and humiliation to the complainant and that is why, compensation of Rs.5 lac claimed.

2.                 In written reply submitted by OP1, it is claimed that Coca-Cola Company, USA has granted licenses to certain entities in India(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘bottlers’) in connection with preparation and packaging of certain beverages. Coca-Cola company merely grants a temporary permission, uncoupled with any rights and/or interest without payment of any fee or royalty charges. The bottlers uses the  trademarks, labels, signs, containers or other visual representations thereof owned by the company in connection with preparation, packaging, distribution and sale of the beverages. The authorized bottlers deal with the manufacture, distribution and sale of these beverages in and throughout a geographical area authorized in the Bottler’s agreement. Profit on the sale of beverages by the authorized bottlers belongs entirely to the authorized bottlers and not to OP1. These authorized bottlers have independent legal entity. The bottlers obtained license from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India before undertaking the activity of preparation, packaging, distribution and sale of the beverages including packaged water. This fact is even depicted on the labels. So, grievance, if any of the complainant is entirely against the bottlers. Besides, it is claimed that the complainant is not a consumer of OP1 and he has no cause of action even. Manufacturing process adopted by the bottler is fully automated and a highly advanced and sophisticated automatic process is followed for cleaning the bottles, filling the beverage in the bottles and sealing the same with crowns. At any stage, the bottle is not touched by the human hands. In view of this automatic process, there remains no probability of surfacing of foreign article/body unless the bottle is tampered with after it has left the factory of the authorized bottlers or the same is spurious and counterfeit. So, it is claimed that from assertion of the complaint, it is made out as if the bottle is counterfeit, sophisticated and not the genuine product manufactured by the unauthorized bottler. Certain unscrupulous persons are engaged in manufacturing and packaging of spurious products by unauthorized and illegal use of The Coca-Cola Company’s brand name. Such people packes spurious soft drinks, which are deceptively similar. In view of     non production of any evidence of purchase, the product is likely is be                     a counterfeit product. No bill of purchase has been produced. Even complainant intentionally has not named the alleged seller and nor he made him  a party.      Even the amount of sale consideration has not been disclosed. No material even produced to show that the alleged seller purchased the said bottle from any authorized bottler or distributor. Date of manufacture, batch number and particular regarding date of best before use of expiry even not disclosed. Product has not been sent for laboratory analysis. Op1 is not a distributor of the bottle and nor manufacturer and as such, complaint against Op1 alleged to be not maintainable. Complaint alleged to be filed by levelling false allegations. Though, complainant was apprised regarding independent status of the bottler, but as a goodwill gesture, offer was made for forwarding the complaint of complainant to concern bottler. Said bottler communicated Op1 as if they had followed up the               complainant, but complainant has not shown the bottle and nor disclosed as to where-from he purchased the alleged bottle. Complainant even did not share the manufacturing details of the bottle. It is claimed that complainant has demanded Rs.5 lac unjustifiably and that is why, complaint was left unresolved. This complaint alleged to be filed just for extorting the money. No proof adduced by the complainant regarding suffered loss or damage.

3.                 In separate written reply filed by OP2, it is claimed that complaint is not maintainable because no cause of action has accrued against OP2. OP3, impleaded subsequently as seller has not disclosed the name of company from whom    he purchased the sealed Maaza packed bottle and as such, OP2 cannot be fastened with liability. Even Op3 do not claim that Maaza bottle sold by him as the product of OP2. OP3 with the help of local maker sold local made brand of Maaza bottle filled in empty bottles of OP1 and OP2. Empty bottles of Maaza openly are available in the market and they are alleged to have been misused/bottled/filled and thereafter, sold by OP3. The bottle alleged to be purchased by the complainant from Op3 under the name of Maaza is not bottled/filled/manufactured by Op2. No notice of sending the alleged Maaza bottle for testing by the government laboratory ever served on OP2 and as such, violation of provisions of section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleged. In news item published in Ludhiana Bhaskar, it is mentioned as if at the time of drinking, the brother of complainant namely Tarun Kumar found waste in the bottle, but in the complaint, it is claimed as if complainant saw three insects in the bottle when he was going to open the bottle for consumption. Name of Maaza bottle was not disclosed in the newspaper. It is claimed that complaint has been drafted with the help of OP3 just for grabbing the huge and illegal amount on false and frivolous grounds. Complainant has procured some duplicate/fake bottle manufactured by some small time manufacturer who infringes the trade mark and crown of reputed company and that is why, he hurriedly sent the bottle for analysis without awarding the opportunity to Op2 for inspecting the bottle. In view of automatic process of filling the bottle or cleaning the bottle, the chance of entering of foreign articles or inseect in the bottle never occurs, when the bottle is filled at authorized plant of OP2. Bottle in question alleged to be never bottled or packed by Op2 at its plant. Op2, being bottler,bottled and sealed the cold drink products under the name of Op1 with its permission. Maaza bottle comes in visible glass bottle and it is not possible to ignore the insects inside the bottle for the shopkeeper or by the purchaser at any stage. So, the alleged insect in the bottle cannot be overlooked/ignored. In the market, there is stock lying of vacant bottles used by the answering OP for filling the Maaza or other brand, so possibility of using the said empty bottle for filling or packaging the bottle by anti social elements cannot be denied. Allegation of reporting of the matter to Op through email denied along with other allegations of approaching Ops.

4.                 In separate written reply filed by Op3, it is claimed that he sold the sealed pack(as  supplied by company) maaza bottle to the complainant before      the expiry of its best before date. It is claimed that the sealed packed bottle containing the alleged three dead insects belongs to manufacturer and as such, the manufacturing fault was there. Op3 claimed to be just a shopkeeper.

5.                 It may be mentioned here that earlier Op3 was not impleaded as party, but on application filed for impleadment by the complainant, it was impleaded as party vide order dated 26.12.2014.

6.                 Complainant along with counsel tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CA of complainant along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and thereafter, they closed the evidence.

7.                 On the other hand, counsel for OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Mr.U.Narendra Kini, General Manager and Company Secretary of OP1 along with document Ex.R1 and then closed the evidence.  

8.                 Counsel for OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA2 of Sh.S.D.Chhabra, Working as Chief Executive Officer with OP2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

9.                 Sh.Krishan Kumar, proprietor of OP3 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.RW3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

10.               Written arguments in this case submitted by OP2, but not by remaining parties. Oral arguments by counsel for the parties even addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

11.               However, Op3 later on was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 31.05.2016.

12.               Counsel for complainant vehemently contends that the product in question was purchased from OP3 and that fact actually has been admitted by Krishan Kumar, Proprietor of OP3 through affidavits Ex.RW3 and Ex.C9. In view that admission by the proprietor of OP3, there is no escape from the conclusion that actually the bottle in question purchased by the complainant from OP3. Price paid by the complainant for purchase of this bottle neither mentioned in affidavit Ex.RW3 and nor anywhere in the complaint or in the submitted affidavit Ex.CA of complainant. In view of non-mentioning of price  anywhere in the produced evidence or the material produced by the complainant as well as by Op3, it is vehemently contended by counsel for OP1 and Op2 that there is collusion between the complainant and Op3. Even if that collusion between the complainant and OP3 may be there, but despite that liability of that OP will be held, which is established by the material produced on record. That collusion between the complainant and OP3 at the most may be a circumstance for finding as if OP1 and Op2 trapped by the complainant in connivance with Op3.

13.               After going through affidavit Ex.RW3 of Sh.Krishan Kumar son of Sh.Parmeshwari Dass, Proprietor of OP3, it is made out that number of Coca-Cola and Pepsi vehicles supplies the cold drinks and this Krishan Kumar had been purchasing the bottles from these company vehicles for resale, but without getting any bill from them. Though in this affidavit Ex.Rw3, it is mentioned that OP3 purchased the Maaza brand cold drink from the authorized supplier of Ludhiana Beverage Private Limited, Ludhiana for the purpose of resale to the customers, but name of the authorized supplier or of driver of vehicle not mentioned anywhere in Ex.RW3. So much so, name of the person, who supplied the cold drink in question to Op3 on behalf of OP1 and Op2 has not mentioned in Ex.RW3. Certainly as and when, an authorized distributor of a branded company supplies the cold drinks to retailer, then said supply is against the issued bill and not otherwise. In view of non receipt of any bill by OP3 of its manufacturer, from the person, who supplied the cold drink in question along with other bottles, it has to be held that bottle may have been received by Op3 from some unauthorized person or from a person or distributor not authorized by Op1 or OP2 to supply these bottles on behalf of Op1 and Op2. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the complainant or OP3    are able to establish as if the bottle purchased by the complainant from OP3 is actually manufactured or distributed by OP1 or OP2 or any of them. Inference of collusion between the complainant and Op3 also drawable because of the fact that affidavit Ex.C9 of Sh.Krishan Lal son of Sh.Parmeshwari Dass submitted by the complainant after procuring the same from OP3. Had there been not any collusion between the complainant and Op3, then Op3 would not have submitted his own affidavit in the evidence of complainant, but that has taken place due to production of affidavit Ex.C9 and as such, only inference  drawable is that Op3 colluded    with the complainant and that is why the latter able to stack his claim against Op1 and Op2. Despite this collusion, proof not adduced to establish that actually the bottle in question manufactured or distributed by OP1 or OP2 or any of them.

14.               It is the specific stand taken by Op1 and Op2 each that empty bottles belonging to their concern available in the market openly and they may have    been misused/bottled/filled for selling the same to Op3. These are also the averments of affidavits Ex.RA2 of Mr.S.D.Chhabra and of Ex.RA of U.Narendra Kini. Contents of these affidavits cannot be ignored, particularly when OP3 purchased the bottles from the persons not known to him, but from the persons who represented Op3 that they are selling the cold drinks in the vehicles of OP1 and Op2. OP3 purchased the bottle in question along with other bottles from unknown persons and as such inference is obvious that Op3 purchased the bottle in question along with other bottles of cold drinks from the persons not authorized as distributor or wholesale seller either by Op1 or by Op2. So, even if action by Op1 or Op2 under the Trade Mark Act may not have been taken against unauthorized distributor or wholesale seller, despite that they cannot be held liable for unauthorized act of OP3 to sell the bottle in question to complainant after receipt from the persons, not shown to be authorized distributor or seller acting on behalf of Op1 and Op2. Question of initiating criminal proceedings for the fictitious use of the bottle to OP3 by Op1 and Op2 would have arisen only, if OP3 would have disclosed the name of the person, from whom, he purchased the bottle supplied by him to the complainant. As already discussed above, neither the name of the person supplying the bottle to OP3 disclosed and nor the number of vehicle disclosed and nor the name of driver or of the person accompanying him on the alleged vehicle supplying the bottle disclosed and as such, Op1 or Op2 could not have taken any action for violation of Copy Right Infringements Act  or under the           Trademark Act etc.

15.               As per law laid down in case of Pepsi Cola India Marketing Company vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta, bearing Appeal No.2459/SC of 2000 decided on 10.5.2001 by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, if voucher pertaining to the transaction did not disclose the name of the distributor and the distributor not impleaded as party or the confirmation of such sale by the distributor not obtained, then the company cannot be made liable. Same is the position in the case before us because here name of the supplier or distributor to OP3 of bottles of cold drinks not disclosed and nor any confirmation from the distributor obtained that he sold the product in question to Op3 and as such, certainly neither Op1 and nor OP2 can be held liable.

16.               Counsel for complainant has placed reliance on report of The Food Analyst, Punjab Ex.C8 for arguing that three dead insects were detected in this bottle in question and as such, the bottle purchased by the complainant was not fit for consumption. Even if this report Ex.C8 is there, despite that from the perusal of report itself, it is made out that sample sent to the Food Analyst, Punjab was received in the laboratory after expiry of 'best before use' period. So, in report Ex.C8 itself, it has been mentioned that in view of provisions of Section 27(3)(a) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Rules and Regulations, 2011, the seller shall be liable for any article of food, which is sold by him after the date of its expiry. Though, the bottle in question has been held to be unsafe for human consumption through report Ex.C8, but said bottle sent to the Food Analyst, Punjab after expiry of shelf life period and as such, certainly liability to remain of OP3, the seller of the product in question to the complainant because of above referred rules and regulations of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. So, certainly OP3 is liable for supplying the product in question, despite the fact that the same was unfit for human consumption on the date of supply. In holding this view, we are fortified by law laid down by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in First Appeal No.732 of 2010, decided on 3.12.2013 through case titled as Managing Director/Area Manager of (Coca-Cola & Company) Amritsar vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others. Perusal of ratio of this   cited case reveals that Coca Cola company cannot be held liable, if the product alleged to be manufactured by it sent for analysis to the public analyst after expiry of shelf life period, particularly when the bill or supporting evidence not produced to show that this product was purchased from the retailer by the complainant. Same is the position in the case before us because here OP3 has not produced any evidence to show that he actually purchased the product in question from the authorized distributor or wholesale seller of Op1 or OP2 or any of them and no bill of purchase even produced by him.

17.               Even in case decided on 26.3.2013 by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, Camp at Dharamshala in First Appeal No.305 of 2012 titled as Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages Pvt. Ltd, G.T.Road. Phillaur, District Jalandhar vs. Shri Tilak Raj Ratra and others, it has been held that if there is no evidence on record for showing that retailer purchased the cold drink in question from the manufacturer or its authorized dealer or distributor, then Forum is not justified in jumping to the conclusion that the product in question has been manufactured by the manufacturing company. Same is the position in the case before us and as such, this Forum cannot jump to the conclusion that the product in question coming in the hands of complainant after purchase from Op3 actually manufactured by Op1 and Op2 or any of them. In similar circumstances like one of this case, it has been held by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh bearing First Appeal No.650 of 2010 titled as Simran Departmental Store vs. J.B.S.Sabharwal and others decided on 29.4.2010 that in case evidence does not prove the purchase by the retailer of the bottle from the authorized distributor of manufacturer, then the retailer will remain liable for the defects in the sold product to the customer. It is on account of this that liability of OP3 is adjudged above in this case. Ratio of case of M/s Varun Beverages Limited vs. Sh.Babar Sharp and others bearing First Appeal No.46 of 2007 decided on 6.12.2008 by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttrakhand, Dehradun is the same as that is of case of Simran Departmental Store vs. J.B.S.Sabharwal and others (Supra) or of case Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages Pvt. Ltd, G.T.Road. Phillaur, District Jalandhar vs. Shri Tilak Raj Ratra and others (Ibid). So, for the fault of OP3 in procuring the bottle in question from the unauthorized distributor and then selling the same to complainant, liability on Op1 and Op2 cannot be fastened.

18.               Benefit from ratio of case titled as Bal Krishan vs. Coca-Cola Company and others-II(2011)CPJ-510(Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla) cannot be gained by counsel for complainant because in the reported case, question involved was only for enhancement of compensation, but without involvement of question as to whether the liability of manufacturer will remain, even if the product sent after shelf life period or the product not proved to be purchased by the retailer from the authorized distributor or wholesale seller of the manufacturer. Same is the position of case titled as Sameer Bhardwaj(Dr.) vs. Aradhana Soft Drinks Company and others-2010(2)CPJ-47(Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T.). No question was involved in this reported case qua liability of manufacturer, if the product got analyzed after expiry of shelf life period, but that is the question most germane to the present case in view of report Ex.C8 of Food Analyst, Punjab relied upon by the complainant himself. Even in cases titled as National Consumer Protection Research Centre(Regd.) and anothers vs. Pepsi Food India through M/s Dhillon Cool Drinks & Beverages LImited-2007(1)CPC-528(Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla); Aradhna Soft Drinks Company and another vs. Dr.Sameer Bhardwaj and another-2010(3)CPJ-325(N.C.); Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd vs. Purushottam Gaur and others-2014(2)CLT-266(N.C.); C.C.Chellappan vs. Chennai Bottling Company Limited-2005(2)CPJ-636(Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai) and Umesh Thakur vs. Punjland Beverages Pvt. Ltd and others-2011(2)CPJ-348(Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla); questions were not involved regarding testing of the product after the expiry of shelf life period or of purchase by retailer from unauthorized wholesale dealer of manufacturer.  

19.               In case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd vs. Purushottam Gaur and others (Supra), it was found that OPs concerned did not try to help laboratory personnel in sending the answer posed by the Incharge        of the laboratory/public analyst. However, Op1 and Op2 are not charged with that question of not co-operating the Food Analyst, Punjab and as such, question of shifting of onus on Op1 and Op2 does not arise.

20.               Counsel for complainant placed reliance on email correspondence Ex.C1 for contending that matter regarding existence of the insects in bottle in question was brought to the notice of OP1 and that is why, they called upon their officials to remain in touch with the complainant. Even if an official of Op1 may have been deputed, but that does not mean that liability acknowledged by Op1 through Ex.C1. Rather, Op1 undertook to look into the matter for redressing the grievance of complainant only. Same is the position with respect to email correspondence Ex.C2. Complainant also filed complaint with Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana on 15.9.2014 as revealed by contents of Ex.C3 and no action on the basis of same alleged to be taken by the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana and if that has happened, then due to that alone fault of OP1 and Op2 cannot be found.

21.               In newspaper clipping Ex.C4, it is mentioned as if younger brother of complainant purchased the bottle in question from a shop in the locality, but story put forth in this complaint or through submitted affidavit Ex.CA is otherwise to the effect as if the complainant himself purchased the bottle from Op3. Name of the retailer, who sold the bottle in question to the younger brother of the complainant not mentioned in Ex.C4 or in the newspaper clippings Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 and as such, it is obvious that story in connivance with Op3 may have been concocted and that is why originally name of Op3 not mentioned in the news items, but in Ex.C5, it is mentioned as if it was purchased from a general store. Even perusal of Ex.C6 reveals as if bottle in question was purchased by Tarun Kumar, brother of complainant and as such, story in that respect differently prepared than that of the projected through complaint. Only that person will cook up a story with different versions, who is to conceal something and as such, in view of  connivance of the complainant with Op3, Op1 and Op2 cannot be fastened with liability.

22.               As per law laid down in case Pepsi Cola India Marketing Company vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta-2001(1)UC-43(N.C.), in case, the distributor not made a party and it is not proved that distributor of the company sold the same product, which was bottled by Pepsi Cola Marketing Company, then inference of collusion with complainant draw-able. It is also held in this case that products of the branded companies are sold through a large network of distributors and dealers because those products are in high demand is a matter of common knowledge. On number of occasions the products are found to be spurious, which may not be the act of the bottler or manufacturing company. In case, the distributor would have been made  party, then he could have submitted the information that product was received     by him from the Pepsi Company alone. Onus is on the complainant to prove that bottle he purchased and containing the spurious material was supplied by Ops. All these are the observations recorded in the above cited case. By applying the analogy of law laid down by the above cited case, it has to be held that in view of non-disclosure of name of person, from whom, OP3 purchased the bottle in question, the only inference that can be drawn is that Op3 deliberately not disclosed the name of the supplier or of the distributor. That deliberate withholding of information may be due to collusion of OP3 with the complainant as discussed in detail above and as such, Op1 or Op2 cannot be held liable.

23.               Sample in question was sent by this Forum to Food Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh by passing order dated 31.12.2014, but without issue of notice to OP1 or OP2. Even no  material produced on record to show that  copy of report of Ex.C8 supplied to OP1 or Op2 or any of them at any point of time and as such, certainly there is violation of provisions of Section 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that where the complaint alleges defect in the goods, which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, then District Forum to obtain the sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and thereafter, refer the sample so sealed to appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory to make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary for finding out as to whether such goods suffered from alleged defect or not. Section 13(1)(e) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 further provides that after receipt of report from the appropriate laboratory, District Forum to forward a copy of report along with its remarks(as it considered appropriate) to Ops. However, copy of report Ex.C8 not shown to be sent at all to Ops or any of them and as such, the report cannot be read against Ops, particularly when as per law laid down by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in its decision dated 20.02.2015 rendered in First Appeal No.268 of 2011 titled as Rajan Garg vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited and others, it has been specifically held that in case notice of appointment of local commissioner for conduct of inspection of the vehicle etc., is not issued to Ops, then the report of local commissioner cannot be used against Ops. Same is the position in the case before us because here neither copy of report Ex.C8 sent to Ops or any of them and nor notice before sending bottle to laboratory was given to Ops or any of them.

24.               So, just on the strength of report Ex.C8, liability of OP1 or Op2 cannot be held, particularly when compliance of provisions of Section 13 of the Act as discussed in detail above has not been done.

25.               Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed against OP1 and OP2, but same allowed against OP3 only in terms that OP3 will pay compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) for supply of the insect infested bottle to complainant. Besides compensation for physical harassment of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP3 only. Payment of these amounts be made by OP3 to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

26.                         File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                              (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                (G.K.Dhir)

                        Member                                                President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:07.08.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.