DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 94 of 21.3.2017

                                      Decided on:         2.3.2021

Badal Pal S/o Sh.Nath Pal aged about 29 years r/o H.No.535/1, Bajwa Colony, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. (Corporate Office) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Private Limited 3^rd Floor, Orchid Center, DLF Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon, 122001, Haryana India through its Manager/Managing Director.
2. Nest Enterprises, New Professor Colony Street No.9, Saheed Udham Singh Marg, Near Saheed Kartar Singh Sarbha Chowk 66 Feet Road, Jalapur, Patiala through its Proprietor.
3. Kandhari Beverages Private Limited, Village Nabipur District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Rajiv Lohatbaddi, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Kulwant Singh, counsel for OP No.1.

                                      Sh.P.S.Walia, counsel for OP No.3.

                                      Complaint against OP No.2 dismissed being given up.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Badal Pal (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Corporate Office of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Private Limited and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).

FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT

2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that on 31.12.2016 he purchased some beverages and other edible products including 10 bottles of Maaja Mango, 600 ML each having batch No.188 dated 16.10.2016 of OP No.1 from OP No.2.It is averred that in the evening when complainant took the bottles in question for serving cold drink he was surprised on seeing that there were dead housefly, spider and insect body parts inside the bottle of Maaza Mango cold drink. On the next day, complainant approached OP No.2 but OP No.2 showed his inability. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to  pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice; to pay Rs.21000/- as litigation expenses and also to pay further Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP No.1&3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. However, the complaint filed against OP No.2 has been dismissed being given up by complainant vide his separate statement dated 9.5.2017.

REPLY/WRITTEN STATEMENT

4. In the written statement filed by OP No.1, it raised preliminary objections that the complaint is bad for mis joinder of the parties as Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd. is an authorized bottler of Coca Cola Company, Atlanta, United States of America and  has been manufacturing and distributing coca cola products such as coca cola, sprite, fanta, diet coke, limca, thums up,maaza,minute maid etc in certain parts of India and it does not manufacture and distribute the coca cola products in the area of Patiala(Punjab) and thus complainant is not entitled to seek any relief against OP No.1; that the OP No.1 has no concern/dealing with OPs No.2&3 as such it is not liable to pay any compensation.
5. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant is not consumer of OP as it neither sold the Maaza Bottles to the complainant nor had supplied the same to OPs No.2&3 and the dispute if any is between the complainant and OPs No.2&3 and the allegations leveled against OP No.1 are false and frivolous.There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1. After denying all other averments, this OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In the reply filed by OP No.3, it also raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable;that the present complaint is an abuse of process of law and same is false, frivolous and vague; that the present complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties and  that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant against the OP.
7. On merits, it is submitted that the OP No.3 is bottler of Coca Cola company and the bottle in question must be a duplicate, spuriously filled bottle or there must be tempering with the seal of bottle. It is further averred that the inspection of bottle in question was very much necessary to be inspected by an expert of the company in the presence of Hon’ble Forum. It is further submitted that Kandhari Beverages company is committed to their work and is also committed to deliver the product of high quality to its customers. It is submitted that it is a clear case of tempering of bottle. The allegations are baseless and just to tarnish the image of company. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.3. After denying all other averments, OP No.3 also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8.  
8. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C2 and closed the evidence.
9. The ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Rajinder Prasad Dimri alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and OP2 and closed the evidence.
10. The ld.counsel for OP No.3 has tendered in evidence,Ex.OPB affidavit of Ashish Sethi, Chief Executive Kandhari Beverages, Ex.OPC affidavit of Ashwani Saini, Manager Quality Control Kandhari Beverages and closed the evidence.
11. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
12.  
12. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that OP No.2 is a grocery store and is selling edible and beverages  and OP No.3 is manufacturer of Maaza Mango. The ld. counsel further argued that on 31.12.2016 complainant purchased some products from OP No.2 including 10 bottles of Maaza Mango but in the evening when he took the bottles he was surprised to see that there was some foreign particle like dead housefly, spider and insect body inside the maaza bottle. The ld. counsel further argued that as OPs No.1&3 are manufacturer so they be penalized.
13. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 has argued that they are not the manufacturer of this Maaza Bottle and they have no concern with the complaint. The ld. counsel for OP No.3 has argued that there is collusion between complainant and OP No.2 as the complaint filed against OP No.2 was withdrawn from whom the alleged bottle was purchased.The ld. counsel further argued that there is no evidence on the file that OP No.3 has supplied the Maaza bottle to OP No.2.The ld. counsel further argued that in these days there are many fake manufacturer of every cold drink .So the complaint be dismissed.
14. To prove the case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint. Ex.C1 is the bill of Nest Enterprises.
15. On the other hand, Sh.Rajender Prasad Dimri has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per his defence. Ex.OP1 is the authority letter. Ex.OP2 is power of attorney. Sh.Ashish Sethi has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPB on behalf of OP No.3 and he has stated that bottle in question must be duplicate, spuriously filled or there seal must be tempered with. Ashwani Saini  also tendered affidavit Ex.OPC and he has deposed the detail process of manufacturing.
16. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased 10 bottles of Maaza Mango from OP No.2 on 31.12.2016 for Rs.320/- but to the reason best known to the complainant he had withdrawn his case against OP No.2 who was the main culprit in this complaint. In this complaint, the complainant has not been able to prove his case.
17. There is no evidence on the file which can show that these bottles were purchased by OP No.2 from the wholesale dealer of OP No.3 by whom it was manufactured. OP No.3 has categorically stated in the affidavit that in these days there are spurious cold drinks which are prepared and sold in the market, so it was OP No.2 to explain that from which whole seller of OP No.3 he had purchased these bottles but only complainant knows that for what reasons he had withdrawn his complaint against the main culprit i.e. OP No.2.These bottles although were kept in this office were never sent for chemical examination at the time of filing of the complaint on 27.3.2017.So there is no evidence on the file which can show that bottles were manufactured or marketed by OPs No.1&3.There is also no evidence on the file as to which whole seller  of OP No.3, the OP No.2 has purchased the bottles but as already stated above, the complainant has withdrawn the complaint against OP No.2. So the complaint is false and frivolous there being no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.          

ANNOUNCED

DATED:2.3.2021         

                                    Y.S.Matta                           Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President