Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/1/2018

Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Amkush Khatri

28 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.01 of 2018

                                                        Date of institution:  15.01.2018                                          

                                              Date of decision   :           28.01.2019

Rakesh Kumar aged about 28 years son of Sh. Khushal Chand R/o cement colony Mandi Gobindgarh Road Amloh, Tehsil Amloh and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

…..Complainant

Versus

1. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd.(Corporate office, 16-17^th Floor, One Horizon Center, Golf Course Road Gurgaon, Sector 43, Gurgaon, 122002, DLF Phase-5, through its MD.
2. Ludhiana Beverages Pvt. Ltd. 185, G.T.Road Ludhiana through its MD/Manager.
3. Thakur & Sons Agencies Iqbal Nagar Road, Sant Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh.

…..Opposite party

Complaint under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Kuljit Singh, President

Sh. Inder Jit, Member

Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member      

                            

Present :   Sh. Ankush Khatri, Adv.Cl. for complainant.

                  Opposite party No.1 exparte.

                  Sh. M.S.Sethi, Adv. Cl. for OP No.2.

                  Sh. H.S.Sodhi, Adv.Cl. for OP No.3.

ORDER

Kuljit Singh, President

                 Complainant Rakesh Kumar aged about 28 years son of Sh. Khushal Chand R/o cement colony Mandi Gobindgarh Road Amloh, Tehsil Amloh and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “OPs”) under Section 12 and 14 the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.               The complainant purchased 3 cases of Cold Drink i.e. one case of  Limca (600 ML) and two cases of Coke (300 ML each) from OP No.2 for an amount of Rs.1300/- vide invoice No.3601 dated 12.12.2017, which was manufactured by OPs No.1 & 2.  The batch No. of the same was 17149R and date of manufacturing was 15.09.17. The complainant had arranged a get together of family friends at his house and when the complainant was going to open the bottles for consuming the same in the house of one of his friends, then he found some black foreign articles in one bottle of Limca, which was manufactured by OPs No.1 & 2. The complainant went to the shop of OP No.3 and made a complaint about the foreign particle in one bottle of Limca cold drink and requested him to take back the bottles and refund the amount of the same but he flatly refused to take back his articles and also refused to refund the amount to the complainant. OP No.3 sold the adulterated cold drink containing foreign particle, manufactured by OPs No.1 & 2, in the market without testing the same as per the specification of health authorities, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.18,00,000/- for compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and tension and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for unwanted litigation and Rs.50,000/- as expenses.

3.               Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs, but OP No.1 chose not to appear to contest this complaint and hence proceeded against as exparte.

4.               In reply to complaint OP No.2 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; no cause of action accrued to the complainant to file the present complaint and the complainant is not a consumer of OP No.2 nor he falls under the definition of the consumer under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. OP No.2 denied categorically all the allegations levelled against it in the complaint. On merit OP No.2 stated that after manual inspection, all washed bottles are electronically inspected by a machine called Electronic Bottle Inspectors located on the conveyor between the Post inspection station and the Filler. It is further stated that bottles are filled and crowned through fully automated machines at a very high speed, which completely rules out any possibility of any foreign material developing in the bottle at the time of filling and crowing.  It is further stated that the bottle in question is spurious, counterfeit and tempered one and the same is not filled by OP No.2 at their beverage and it is not genuine one. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.               In reply to complaint, OP No.3 stated that OP No.3 is not a dealer, retailer, wholesale dealer, distributor or agent of OPs No.1 & 2 and OP No.3 had never dealt with OPs No.1 &2 nor purchased any material from them at any point of time nor ever otherwise sold their material.  The material alleged by the complainant was never sold by OP No.3 to the complainant nor does it have any concern or connection with the alleged material. The complainant has not produced any poisonous and adulterated/hazardous cold drink in any sealed condition in this Forum. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.               In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of bill Ex. C-2, cold drink of Limca 300 ML(Glass Bottle) as Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sohal Lal Verma Ex. OP2/1, affidavit of Sanjay Kumar Koul Ex. OP2/2, true copies of documents Ex. OP2/3 to OP2/7 and closed the evidence.  OP No.3 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. OP3/1 along with documents Ex. OP3/2 to OP3/6 and closed the evidence.

7.               The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complaint be accepted against the OPs as they have sold adulterated cold drink to the complainant. He further argued that the OPs even refused to take back the spurious cold drink bottle when contacted. Ld counsel vehemently argued that the complainant be awarded compensation/litigation charges etc as prayed for in the complaint.

8.               On the onset of arguments, Ld.counsel for OP No.2 argued that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as per para No.14 of the complaint, wherein the complainant stated that " the cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present complaint at Rajpura and the shop/offices of the opposite parties are situated at Mandi Gobindgarh, District Patiala". Ld. counsel further argued that OP No.2 never sold anything to OP no.3 and that OP No.2 have no outlet in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Ld. counsel further argued forcefully that the compensation together with litigation charges & charges on account of deficiency in service claimed by the complainant to the tune of Rs.19,50,000/- against alleged contaminated bottle of cold drink is very much on the higher side and smells malafide intention of the complainant only to grab huge amount from the OPs, who have not committed any offence/mistake.  Ld. counsel further argued that the complaint of the complainant has got self contradictory facts. The complainant stated to have purchased the said bottles from OP No.2 in one para and in another para, he states that OP no.3 refused to take back said bottles etc. He argued to dismiss the complaint with costs.

9.               Ld. counsel for OP No.3 argued that OP No.3 is not connected with OPs No.1 or 2 in any manner and has never dealt with OPs No.1 or 2 nor ever purchased any material from them. Further the material alleged by the complainant to have been purchased from OP No.3 was never sold to the complainant by OP No.3 or OP No.3 has any connection with it. The Ld. counsel further argued that the complainant stated in his complaint that he had purchased the said bottles for a get together at his house and in the next para states that "when he was going to open a bottle at his friend's house…….", he found some foreign articles in it. The Ld. counsel further argued that all allegations leveled against OP No.3 in the complaint are wrong and hence denied. The complainant or his friend never visited OP No.3 for purchase of bottles or for returning the contaminated bottles etc. Ld. counsel argued for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10.             We have gone through the material placed on record, heard oral submissions of Ld. counsel and seen the said bottle in the Court containing the alleged foreign material after opening the packet which was deposited with the Court.  We agree with the pleadings of Ld. counsel for the OPs as whatever they have stated in the oral arguments stands verified in the complaint. Moreover, the complainant has stated in his complaint that he purchased one case of 600 ml Limca and two cases of 300 ml Coke from OP No.2, but the alleged bottle containing foreign material produced in this Forum is of 300 ml capacity of Limca brand.  As per Ex.C-2, it is revealed that complainant had purchased one case of Limca of 600 ml capacity from OP No.3, but the alleged bottle produced in this Forum as Ex. C-3, containing foreign material, is of Limca of 300 ml capacity. Hence, the facts given in the complaint are wrong and baseless. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

11.             The arguments on the complaint were heard on 21.01.2019 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced                                                                    

  Dated: 28.01.2019

                  (Kuljit Singh)           

                  President

 

                                                                                                        (Inder Jit)                                                                         

                                                                                                         Member

 

                                                                                                    (Yuvinder Singh Matta)

                                                                                                        Member