DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/270/2017
Dharam Singh
S/o Sh. Jai Prakash
R/o H. No. A-57, Gali No. 7,
Khajuri Khas, Delhi-110094. …..COMPLAINANT
-
D.S.I.D.C. Ltd.
New Market, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005.
Regd. Office:
A/3-4, State Emporia Building,
Baba Kharak Singh Marg,
Connaught Circus,
New Delhi-110001.
M/s NV Distilleries & Breweries (P) Ltd.
Through its Managing Director/
Authorised Representative
Vill. Sandharshi, Rajpura-140417,
District Patiala, Punjab.…..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Quorum: Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
Dr. R.C. Meena, Member
ORDER
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
- Instant complaint has been filed by Sh. Dharam Singh (in short the complainant) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date against D.S.I.D.C. Ltd. (in short OP1) and Ms/s NV Distilleries & Brewries (P) Ltd. (in short OP2) inter-alia pleading therein that he bought one bottle of wine make “Denis Special Whiskey” vide invoice no. 373299 for Rs. 80/- on 05.07.2015 manufactured by OP1 from the outlet of OP2 and another bottle of wine make “Blue Moon Lime N Gin” vide invoice no. 373346 for Rs. 70/- on 30.11.2015 manufactured by OP1 from the outlet of OP2. When the complainant opened the bottles in a party organized by him, he noticed some grass particles and a small cockroach inside the said bottles which might have entered in the bottles at the time of bottling of the said bottles. Complainant fell ill and started vomiting. The seal of the bottles are intact. Grass particles and cockroach are patently visible.
He personally visited the office of OP1 for redressal of his grievances but in vain. He again visited the office of OP1 on 25.02.2017 but OP1 refused to address his grievances. He also sent a legal notice to OPs asking for compensation for causing physical and mental trauma to which he received a baseless reply. Complainant has claimed Rs. 4.98 lacs as compensation for causing mental and physical trauma and refund of the cost of the bottles of wine. He has further prayed for restraining OP from manufacturing such hazardous and contaminated wine.
- Notice of the instant complaint was sent to OPs who appeared and contested the claim vide separate replies.
- It is denied by OP1 that there was any deficiency in service. OP1 has admitted that complainant purchased one bottle of wine on 05.07.2015 but it is denied that the said bottle contained any grass particles as alleged by the complainant. It is admitted that another bottle of wine was purchased on 30.11.2015 but it is denied that it contained any cockroach as alleged by the complainant. It is submitted that OPs have sophisticated hygienic plant where distilling and bottling is carried out under strict supervision of qualified technical persons in the job of distilling, quality control, bottling etc. It is denied that the complainant visited the office of any OP at any point of time. It is stated that the instant complaint is filed to extort money from the OPs.
- OP2 also filed written statement wherein it is stated that it has good reputation in the market and that complainant might have done some tampering/pilferage with the seal of the bottles. It is also stated that it is not believable that complainant is the only person who purchased two bottles of different brands, manufactured by two different companies within a period of four months, allegedly having unwanted materials in it. It is also stated that complainant remained silent for about two years which raises doubt on the genuineness of his case. It is also stated that complainant has not filed any document/doctor’s prescription slip that any harm was caused to him by consumption of contents of the said bottles. It is also submitted that complainant has to strictly prove that he has not tampered with the bottles and that tampering of liquor bottle cannot be judged by naked eye and further that it requires examination by an expert. It is denied that OP sold contaminated bottles to the complainant or that he has any cause of action.
- We have heard Sh. Satya Narayan, counsel for complainant, Sh. Manish Kumar, counsel for OP1 and AR of OP2. Parties have adduced evidence by way of affidavits.
- Case of the complainant lacks credibility and does not inspire confidence. He purchased first bottle of wine on 05.07.2015 which allegedly contained grass particles. He again purchased another bottle of wine on 30.11.2015 which allegedly contained a cockroach. It is strange that complainant purchased two bottles of wine of different brands within a period of four months and both had unwanted materials in it. Complainant has not mentioned as to when the alleged party was organized, when he noticed the contamination. It is stated by him that he fell ill and started vomiting. There is no medical evidence of the same. The bottles were purchased on 05.07.2015 and on 30.11.2015 but the instant complaint was filed on 04.12.2017. Such huge delay in coming to the forum for redressal of his grievances raises doubt on the genuineness of the claim of the complainant. The bottles were never produced before the Forum nor were got examined from a competent laboratory.
- The complaint is accordingly dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced thisday of2019.
