CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.1398/2005

MR. SUKHBIR SINGH                                                                                     

R/O 423, SANT NAGAR,

EAST OF KAILASH,

NEW DELHI

                                                                                           …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                     

VS.

1. THE GENERAL MANAGER

COCA-COLA INDIA

INC BASEMENT ENKEY TOWER BUILDING

VIJAYA NIKUNJ, PHASE-V, UDYOG VIHARM,

GURGAON (HARYANA)

2. THE MANAGER

TRUPATI DRINKS PVT. LTD.

E-32, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,

PHASE-II, NEW DELHI

3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

COCA-COLA COMPANY-1,

COCA COLA PLAZA,

ATLANTA GA-30313, U.S.A.

………….. RESPONDENTS

Date of Order: 19.12.2018

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

The complainant herein,  Mr. Sukhbir Singh, has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against (1) The General Manager, Coca Cola India, (2) The Manager, Trupati Drinks Pvt. Ltd., and (3), the Chief Executive, Coca Cola Company-1, U.S.A. hereinafter referred to as OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 respectively.  The complainant has submitted that he went to the Shop no.DMS Booth No.1001-1002, E-Block, GK-I, New Delhi, and purchased among other things, a 200 ml. bottle of coca cola.  It is further submitted that without opening the bottle, the complainant saw a pouch of Rajdarbar inside the bottle and asked the shopkeeper to explain the deficiency, but the shopkeeper had no reply.  It is submitted that the complainant being Sikh by religion, had never touched any cigarette or pouch of tobacco and thus it had hurt his religious sentiments.   The complainant was advised by his counsel to serve a legal notice to OP-1 and 3 in August, 2005, and consequently, one Ms. Sonal, Chief of the Quality Control of the Coca Cola of Northern India came to contact the counsel of the complainant and inspected the sealed bottle and confirmed verbally that the bottle is health hazardous, contaminated and against the spirit of the religious sentiments but she showed her inability to do any thing on this issue as  such incidents are very common and the company is not bothered at all. Thereafter, various representatives of Coca Cola visited to inspect the bottle but showed their inability to do anything.   It is submitted that there is deficiency in service and the complainant’s religious sentiments were hurt.   The complainant prayed that the OPs might be  directed to pay  compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant. 

The OP-1 and 3 in their written statement submitted that the complainant has  raised a question of religious sentiments which is not  in the domain of this Forum.  It is submitted that the complainant has not impleaded the seller of the alleged soft drink from whom he allegedly purchased the bottle in question, and the receipts enclosed with the complaint discloses that Tirupati Drinks Pvt. Ltd. who is authorized distributor of Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd. deals in PEPSI and the products sold are PEPSI products and is not related to the alleged transaction.   The OPs further submit that OP-1 is involved only in coordinating  the activities of various licensed bottlers in India who are manufacturing non-alcoholic beverages under the brands namely  Coca Cola, Fanta, Sprite, Thumps Up, etc.  It is submitted that the OPs exercise stringent quality and safety measures.  It is also submitted by the OPs that there are many spurious manufactures who indulge in making spurious projects of the well known brands and they endanger the lives of the common public.   It is submitted that the complainant has neither produced the sealed and contaminated bottle of ‘Coca-Cola’ for inspection before this Forum nor has he had the same scientifically tested through a registered govt. laboratory to prove his allegation.  It is further submitted that the presence of pouch of Raj Darbar in the bottle with authorized trade mark of Coca Cola is disputed and emphatically denied.  The OPs denied that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Since the complainant had not enclosed with the complaint any photograph of the Coca Cola Bottle allegedly containing the pouch of Raj Darbar  nor had ever produced the said bottle for inspection of the Forum, which was the bare minimum proof or evidence to justify the genuineness of the complaint.

Counsel for the OPs also submitted his oral arguments and submitted that in view of the failure of the complainant to produce the bottle or any other piece of evidence, the complaint might be dismissed.

We have gone through the complaint, reply, evidence and written submissions of the parties and are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove the allegation made in the complaint. 

On 07.07.2014, Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that the bottle is lying with the complainant.  The complainant was directed to produce the bottle on the next date of hearing and the matter was adjourned for 20.11.2014.  On that day, nobody appeared for the complainant and the matter was adjourned for 13.02.2015.  Again on that day, nobody appeared for the complainant and the matter was adjourned for 10.08.2015.  Again on that day, nobody appeared for the complainant.  Again vide order dated 04.04.2018, the complainant was directed to produce the bottle and matter was adjourned for 28.08.2018.  On that day nobody appeared for the complainant.  In fact whenever the complainant was directed to produce the bottle, he did not appear. 

The complainant has failed to prove his case.  Hence the complaint is dismissed.

            Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

    (RITU GARODIA)                        (H.C. SURI)                           (A.S. YADAV)

        MEMBER                                   MEMBER                               PRESIDENT