Delhi

East Delhi

CC/693/2013

VIKAS SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHARMENDER KR. GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

10 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 693/13

 

Shri Vikas Sharma

S/o Shri Brij Pal Sharma

C/o Swaroop & Company

E-417, Karkardooma Courts

Delhi                                                                                                  ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Shri Dharmender Kumar Gupta

S/o shri Harish Chander Gupta

R/o H. No. 11-A, 1^st Floor, Gali No. 1

Village Karkardooma, Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Bankey Bihari Enterprises

Plot No. 5, Khasra No. 1450/953/40

Behind Deeepak Memorial Hospital

Karkardooma, Delhi – 110 092

 

3. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd.

5, Kilometre Milestone, Masuri

gulawati Road, Tehsil Dhaluana

District Hapur, UP – 201 015

 

4. Union of India

Ministry of Health

Thrugh its Secretary

Central Secretariat, New Delhi                                                    ….Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 23.08.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 10.11.2016

Judgment Passed on: 19.12.2016

 

 

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

The present complaint  was initially filed by Shri Vikas Sharma against Shri Dharmender Kumar Gupta (OP-1), Bankey Bihari Enterprises (OP-2), Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd.(OP-3) and Union of India (OP-4).  Later on, SPA was executed by the complainant in favour of Shri Joginder. 

2.        Facts in brief are that on 20.04.2013, the complainant had purchased a bottle of 330ml “Sprite” from trolley of OP-1, packaged vide batch no. BN262AMG, package date 06.03.2013 for Rs. 15/-.  The complainant observed that there were some foreign impurities/material in the sealed bottle, rendering it unfit for consumption.  On inquiry from OP-1, the complainant was informed that the said product was sold to him by    OP-2, who was the dealer of OP-3.  It was stated that the bottle was in the custody of the complainant and he wanted to approach government lab for conducting test.  Legal notice dated 23.04.2013 was sent by the complainant to OP, which was not replied.  Thus, complainant has prayed for RS. 10,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

            Photographs of the bottle, legal notice dated 23.04.2013 and Registered ADs are annexed with the complaint. 

3.        Notice of the complainant was served upon OPs.  However, OP-2 neither put appearance nor filed any reply, thus was proceeded ex-parte. 

Written Statement was filed by OP-1, where it was admitted that the complainant had purchased the said bottle from OP-1.  Receipt of legal notice dated 23.04.2013 was also admitted.  The retail invoice issued by OP-2 and legal notice are annexed with the complaint. 

            OP-3 also filed their reply, where they took the plea that no proof of purchase of the bottle had been filed.  It was stated that proper procedure was followed before bottling the product.  The procedure has been explained in details in their WS.  It was further stated that the complainant had paid Rs. 15/-, which was cost of the liquid only, whereas, he had not paid separate price for bottle.  It was also stated that OP-3 followed stringent process of manufacturing and maintained highest quality standards for inspection of bottles.  Inspection at every stage i.e. washing, filling, crowning, coding and post filling were followed. 

4.        Rejoinder to the WS of OP-3 was filed by the complainant, where it was stated that bill was not issued by OP-1, however, it was admitted by OP-1 in his WS.  Objection with respect to the cost of bottle taken by OP-3 was that the complainant had intended to return the bottle back to OP-1.

5.        Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by Shri Joginder Singh, SPA holder, of the complainant and reproduced the contents of the complaint and relied upon SPA of the complainant and ID proof of the complainant (Ex.CW1/1), photographs of the bottle (Ex.CW1/2) (colly.) and legal notice dated 23.04.2013 alongwith Regd. AD (Ex.CW1/3 to Ex.CW1/5).

            Affidavit of Shri Paras Chaudhary was filed by OP-3, who deposed on oath the contents of WS.

6.        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for OP-3 and perused the material placed on record.  The bottle of “Sprite” which was ordered to be kept under seal in the custody of this forum was opened.  It is found that the crown of the bottle was intact and some foreign fungal like material was present.  It is very much visible with naked eyes.  OP-3 in its WS has submitted that OP-1 and OP-2 were not the authorized sellers, he was not liable. 

As it is the admitted fact that the complainant had purchased bottle from OP-1, hence, we are of the opinion that OP-1 is liable to pay        Rs. 1,500/- as compensation for selling spurious product to the complainant.  We further award Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation in favour of the complainant.

If the said orders are not complied within 30 days of receipt of order, the company have to pay the total amount of Rs. 2,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.               

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President