DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.981/07

Sh. Preetpal Singh

S/o Late Sh. Raghuvir Singh

C/o Sh. Darshan Singh

103, Gali No.10, Kesinpur 

Kankarkhera, Meerut Cantt.

Meerut (UP) PIN-250001                                         …. Complainant

Versus

1.       Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd.

18A, DA SCO Complex

Defence Colony, Post Box No.3613

New Delhi-110024

2.       United Beweries Ltd.

U.B. Ancharge 100/1 Richmond Road,

Banglore (Karnataka)-56002                               …. Opposite party

                                                Date of Institution  : 31.10.07                                                           Date of Order       :  03.01.17

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that on 16.05.07 he had purchased 6 bottles of beer from OP No.1 vide receipt No.3296389 for Rs.270/- i.e. Rs.45/- per bottle. These beer bottles were of Kingfisher brand and manufactured at Punjab Beverages Pokel area, Ludhiana. After consuming the 5 bottles he alongwith his four friends felt uncomfortable and started vomiting and they saw that there was some substance in the remaining one sealed beer bottle.   He  lost his faith and reputation in the eyes of his friend as well as in the society. He sent a legal notice to the OPs on 30.05.07 setting out the problem after drinking unhygienic beer.  The OPs received the said legal notice. The OP No.1 asked for  some information vide reply dated  08.06.2007.  As the OP No.1 is a Govt. body  authorized for sale of liquor and the OP No.2 is the manufacturer of beer, they are jointly  and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.  The Complainant has prayed that OPs be directed to refund Rs.360/- paid to the OP No.1 for the purchase of said beer alongwith 18% interest, to pay compensation for physical pain and agony upto Rs.5 lacs which was borne by the 5 persons (Complainant alongwith his four friends) and to pay cost of  litigation.

OP No.1 in the written statement has inter-alia stated that they required the information vide letter dated 08.06.07 from the Complainant as to from where he had  purchased the said beer bottles and to provide a cash memo but the Complainant failed to provide the information to them.  The photocopy of the cash memo does not bear any batch no. and ,therefore, it is not clear as to which bottles were purchased by the Complainant. The respondent No. 2 is the  manufacturer of  the said beer bottles who used to supply the same  to the OP1 for sale and OP 1 sales the same in the same condition in which it receives from the manufacturer.  Other averments made in the complaint have been denied.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.     

OP No.2 in the written statement has stated that the alleged beer bottles might have been tampered with which were required to be tested from a Govt. approved laboratory. They suspect genuineness/validity of the alleged beer bottles The Complainant served legal notice on 30.05.07 . The OP No.1 vide letter dated 08.06.07 requested the Complainant to provide some information. The Complainant was provided with opportunity by OP No.1 to resolve the grievance but the Complainant chose to approach this forum with ill motive and illegally sought money. As the cash memo is not made in the name of the Complainant hence, it cannot be assumed that the beer bottles were actually purchased by the Complainant vide the said cash memo .The Complainant is guilty of producing wrong facts before this forum.  The Complainant had stated in the legal notice that after consuming of 2 bottles of beer he alongwith his four friends felt uncomfortable and their health deteriorated but, however, a contrary statement is  made by the Complainant in the  complaint that they had consumed 5 beer bottles out of the 6 bottles purchased and  this dual version of the Complainant is evident proof of possible mischief. The Complainant might have procured tampered, fabricated beer bottles and the cash memo. OP 2 is well known to produce quality product and the Kingfisher brand of OP No.2 ranks top in Indian Beer Industry and they have a bottling processing which is automated and sealed process that leaves no possibilities of any foreign particle left or entering into the bottle even after the filling. The empty bottles before putting into use are physically verified  and only visible clean bottles are put through washing process and cleaned with highly reactive chemical i.e. caustic soda which even removes the previously affixed level on the recycled bottles. The claim of the Complainant demanding Rs.5 lacs towards physical pain and agony is an act to illegal extortion of money. OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Complainant has filed a rejoinder.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence.

On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Harish Govil, Dy. Manager (IMFL) of OP 1 and affidavit of Sh. Vijay Prakash has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP 2 respectively.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also carefully examined the material placed before us.

There is ample evidence on the record to show that the complainant had purchased six bottles  of beer make Kingfisher for a sum of Rs . 270/- from a vend shop of OP No. 1 on16-05-2007.  To that extent, we are of the opinion that the OPs are not justified in raising a plea that the complainant has not filed any documentary evidence to prove this fact.  It is a matter of common knowledge that the name of the purchaser is generally not mentioned on the purchase memo unless and until the purchaser specifically asks the vendor to mention his/her name in the cash memo. 

As per the averments made in the complaint the complainant and  his friends consumed  5 bottles of beer  and  thereafter they started feeling uncomfortable and vomiting.  However, in the legal notice  copy of which has been filed on the record the complainant  pleaded that he and his friends  started feeling uncomfortable after consuming two bottles  of beer.  Therefore, in the particular facts and circumstances of the present case this is a material contradiction in the two versions of the complainant.  If the version made in the legal notice is believed then the complainant should have 4 unconsumed bottles of beer with him.  However, as stated hereinabove as per the averments made in the complaint he and his friends had consumed 5 bottles of beer.  However, he has been bringing only one bottle in this Forum which as per the observations made by us on 04.11.2016 seems to have some foreign contents in the liquid. 

Mere having some foreign contents in liquid is of no great importance.  The complainant never tried to send the unconsumed one bottle for laboratory test.  He should have also retained the 5 empty bottles with him as these could have also given material evidence to reach to a just conclusion.

According to the complainant their health had deteriorated and they had also vomitted. There is no whisper of averment in the complaint or his affidavit that they had taken any medical assistance or first aid from any medical practitioner.  Therefore,  the mere version of the complaint in the absence of any medical evidence is liable to be discarded. 

In view of the above discussion, we do not find OPs guilty of unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.  Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs. 

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on   03.01.17.