Haryana

StateCommission

A/786/2015

AMIT KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

KANDHARI BEVERAGES PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      786 of 2015

Date of Institution:      16.09.2015

Date of Decision :       06.10.2015

 

Amit Kumar s/o Sh. Surender Kumar Sharma, Resident of Azad Marg, Vidya Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Kandhari Beverages Private Limited, Village Katha, District Baddi (Himachal Pradesh) through Managing Director/Manager (Manufacturer).

 

2.      Shyam Traders, Opposite Old Power House Tosham Road, Bhiwani, Haryana, through its Prop/Distributor.

 

3.      Lovely General Store, Opposite Old Bus Stand, Bhiwani (Retailer).

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Ankit Grewal, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of complainant is directed against the order dated June 11^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Bhiwani.

2.      On August 12, 2012, Amit Kumar-complainant-appellant, purchased two bottles of ‘Thumps Up’ cold drinks from Lovely General Store-opposite party No.3 vide cash memo No.294 against payment of Rs.44/-. The cold drink was manufactured by Kandhari Beverages Private Limited-opposite party No.1 and was supplied to the opposite party No.3 through its dealer Shyam Traders-opposite party No.2. The manufacturing date of cold drinks was 16.02.2012. It was mentioned on the bottles that best for consumption within six months.

3.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that some foreign particles were seen in the sealed bottles. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant sought compensation of Rs.18.00 lacs.

4.      The opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply. It was stated that after having received the summons from the District Forum, enquiry was conducted. It was disclosed by the seller-opposite party No.3 that the complainant had brought the bottles of ‘Thumps Up’ complaining of some foreign particle therein but nothing was seen therein. The soft drinks are made under the control and guidelines of the company and material for making soft drinks are examined by the Technical Officers and Government Technical Officer time to time. The bottles are sold in same condition as supplied by the manufacturer. Denying the allegation of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.      It is pertinent to mention here that a bottle of above said cold drink was sent to Food Analyst Haryana, Sector-11, Chandigarh for analysis. As per report of Analyst (Annexure C-3)  it was found that the date of bottling was 16.02.2012, it was best to use within six months and the same was sold to the complainant on 12.08.2012, that is, four days before the expiry date.

6.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum allowed complaint granting compensation of Rs.5,000/-.

7.      Aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the complainant has come up in appeal for enhancement of compensation.

8.      It is not the case of the complainant that the cold drink was consumed by him or by any other person. It has also come on the record that the cold drink was sold to the complainant before the date of expiry. From the report of Food Analyst, it is established that the carbon-di-oxide in the bottles extinguished with the passage of time.

9.      Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the view that the compensation awarded to the complainant is just and reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement.

10.    Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Announced 06.10.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL