Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/350/2018

Mukesh Kumar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Hitender Kansal

11 Jan 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/350/2018
Date of Institution	:	20/07/2018
Date of Decision	:	11/01/2022

 

Mukesh Kumar Gupta S/o Sh.Dev Raj Gupta, Age 49 years, R/o H.No.199, Sector 21A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., 3^rd Floor, Orchid Centre, DLF Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon, Haryana, India-122001, through its CEO.

     2^nd Address:

     Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Private Limited, B-91, Mayapuri Industrial Area Phase-1, New Delhi-110064, through its CEO.

2. Kandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Village Nabipur, District Fatehgarh Sahib Punjab-140406.
3. Chandigarh kariana Store, Booth No.120, Sector 20C, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Hitender Kansal, Counsel for complainant.
	:	Sh.Ashim Aggarwal, Counsel for OP No.1.
	:	None for OP No.2.
	:	OP No.3 ex-parte.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Briefly stated the allegations are that the complainant had purchased one Limca bottle of 300 ML on 31.05.2018 from Opposite Party No.3 by making a payment of Rs.20/- which was marketed by Opposite Party No.1 and manufactured and bottled by Opposite Party No.2. Copy of the said bill is annexed as Annexure C-1. As per complaint, at time of using the bottle, it transpired to the complainant’s daughter that one piece of plastic around 1 inch was floating in the bottle. As per complainant, immediately wrote an email to the Opposite Party No.1 and drawn its kind attention on the quality control standards of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2. Photographs of bottle and copies of emails are annexed as Annexure C-2 to C-4. No action was taken by the Opposite Party No.1 the complainant again wrote an email dated 05.06.2018 to Opposite Party No.1. Copy of email is annexed as Annexure C-5.

    As per complaint, in response of email, the Opposite Party No.1 visited the house of complainant, where they physically inspected the said bottle and told the complainant that they would revert back the complainant after verifying the record of Opposite Party No.2 & 3. Further, they also assured the complainant that they will redress his grievance within a short span of 4-5 days. But, till date no response has been received by complainant from Opposite Party No.1. The complainant approached the CEO of the Opposite Party No.1 by writing a letter dated 15.06.2018 through courier. The copies of letter and courier receipts are annexed as Annexure C-6 & C-7. Alleging that the aforesaid act amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant complaint.    

2.     Opposite Party No.1 contested the consumer complaint. The Opposite Party No.1 is a responsible world class company in terms of quality and towards this it has enforced strict quality control checks which eliminate any kind of defective or below standard products entering the market for sale to the consumers. In the present case, it is not established that the bottle allegedly purchased vide bill dated 31.05.2018 is same as one shown as no batch no. etc. has been mentioned on the bill. The alleged bottle has not been manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1 and no official of Opposite Party No.1 ever visited the complainant and there was no cause or reason for Opposite Party No.1 to visit the complainant. The present complaint is false, frivolous, misconceived and vexatious and ought to be dismissed. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended.
3.     Opposite Party No.2 contested the consumer complaint. In the present case, a big piece of plastic floating in limca in a transparent white color Limca bottle, remain unnoticed by the complainant at the time of purchase. The Opposite Party No.2 states that if there has been any plastic piece which is of around 1 inch long been there in the bottle in question then it is impossible that it could remained unnoticed. It is clear case of tempering of bottle. The present complaint is filed on the basis of spuriously filled and tempered bottle. The bill Exhibit C-1, does not bear the name of complainant and the said bill does not contain any detail of batch number of the bottle in question. The bill does not prove in any manner that the bottle in question has been purchased under the bill. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
4.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Part No.3 seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 21.09.2018.
5.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
6.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
8.     On perusal of the Annexure C-1 it is observed that though the complainant have adduced a proof of purchase of the said Limca, however it does not bear the name of the complainant and the said bill does not contain any detail of batch no. which has been mentioned by the Opposite Party No.3 who is the alleged vendor from whom the bottle was allegedly purchased. Morveover it is also observed that the bottle in question was not got examined in any chemical laboratory, it cannot be inferred that the bottle was found duly sealed. It is well known fact that spuriously filled drinks are readily available in the market and crown/cork can be easily removed or refitted and does not ensure that it is a genuinely prepared drink by the manufacturer. In the instant case also, there is an iota of evidence, which could show that Limca bottle sold to the complainant by Opposite Party No.3 was manufactured and sold by Opposite Party No.1 & 2 to the Opposite Party No.3. It can’t be ruled out that Opposite Party No.3 procured a spuriously drink and sold it to the complainant. Moreover, the Opposite Party No.3 has not entered his appearance and has been proceeded ex-parte. Hence in the absence of the batch number, no correlation can be established that the bottle has been manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1 & 2. Significantly, Opposite Party No.3 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.3 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.3 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted against Opposite Party No.3.
9.     For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed only against Opposite Party No.3 because he sold a cold drink (Limca) to the complainant, in which a plastic object (1 inch) was floating inside the bottle, due to which, it could not be consumed by the complainant and the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.3 is proved on this count. At the same time, in the absence of any chemical report, there is no definite evidence on the file to prove that the contents of the bottle were injurious to health. Opposite Party No.3 is accordingly directed to make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The complaint fails against Opposite Party No.1 & 2.
10.     This order shall be complied with by Opposite Party No.3 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, Opposite Party No.3 shall be liable to refund the above said awarded amount to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint, till its realization, besides costs of litigation, as mentioned above.   
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
11/01/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rajan Dewan]
Ls	Member	President